P.K. HARIS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of 303 acres of land situated in R.S.8/1A1A2, Periya village in Wayanad district. According to them, the property was assigned to them as evidenced by Ext. P1. The area is described in Ext. P1. It is contended that 250 acres out of 303 acres were planted with cardamom. 30 acres were planted with coffee and the remaining with orange. Further steps were taken to enjoy the property as a regular plantation. Ext. P2 and Ext. P3 certificates are referred to show that 250 acres of land is covered by a registration certificate under the Cardamom Act, and 30 acres is covered by a certificate under the Coffee Market Expansion Act 1942. Reference is also made to Ext. P4 of the Taluk Land Board passed on 29/05/75 exempting the entire 303 acres from the computation of the ceiling area under the Land Reforms Act. Petitioners contended that they have remitted plantation tax in relation to the entire 303 acres. Assessment under the Plantation Tax Act was the subject matter of litigation before this court. Ext. P8 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, according to the petitioners, affirm the payment of plantation tax in relation to the entire 303 acres. The affirmative materials are referred to by the petitioners to contend that the entire 303 acres covered by Ext. P1 sale deed is a plantation.

(2.) WHILE so, Ext. P9 notification was issued on 04/10/2000 notifying the details of the ecologically fragile land vested in Govt. as per Section 3(1) of The Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of ecologically fragile lands) Ordinance (No. 8 of 2000). It includes 40.480 hectares in Sy.No.8/1A1A2 of Periya village. Apart from the notification, there is no contemporaneous intimation to the owner of the land. But later by Ext. P10 petitioner was informed that 40.480 hectares of land is vested with the Govt. The above mentioned land was measured and a plan and a sketch have also been prepared, as evidenced by Ext. P11.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent. The substance of the contention taken up therein is that out of the entire extent of land claimed by the petitioners, more than 80 hectares of land is ecologically fragile. Though Ext. P9 notification schedules only 40.48 hectares, 80 hectares is liable to be treated as ecologically fragile land. It is contended that ecologically fragile lands stand vested with the Govt. in terms of Section 3(1) of the Kerala Forest Act and such vesting is not dependent upon a notification. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions in Balan v Kesavan ( : 2006(4) KLT 100) and Murukankutty v Amarnath Shetty ( : 2006(4) KLT 971).