MURUKANKUTTY Vs. AMARNATH SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance raised in this petition, to initiate contempt of court proceedings, is that, in spite of Annexure A judgment containing a time bound direction to restore the land covered by the judgment in M.F.A. No. 804/90, the Custodian is, for one or the other reasons, postponing it, thereby committing contempt of court.

(2.) The answer by the alleged contemner is that because of the enforcement of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act'), the land, being an ecologically fragile land in terms of Section 3(1) of the Act, lying contiguous to vested forest has statutorily vested with the Government, notwithstanding the judgment directing restoration. Therefore, the Custodian is unable to restore the land.

(3.) This contention is countered by the petitioner relying on the decision reported in Joseph v. Lissy Jacob 2000 (3) KLT SN 68 wherein it has been held that a plantation which had been directed to be restored could not have been contended to be an ecologically fragile land in the light of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the custodian cannot be accepted, the petitioner submits.