JACOB THOMAS ARIKUPURAM, Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are claiming ownership of 55 acres of land by virtue of sale deed Nos. 585/1967 and 584/1967 of S.R.O, Mannar. They also claim ownership over another 22= acres of land devolved on them on the death of their father. Relying on Ext.P1, a certificate issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kozhikode, it is stated that the land in question is a registered and fully planted coffee estate. On the coming into force of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, the land in question was treated a a vested private forest and thereupon petitioners filed OA 16/1981 and 17/1981 before the Forest Tribunal, which were disposed of by judgment dated 29/9/86, whereby the applications were allowed and the land in question was declared as a developed coffee plantation, not liable to be vested under the provisions of the Vesting Act.

(2.) IT is stated that respondents in the OA filed MFA 300/89 before this Court against the common judgment of the Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed by Ext.P2 judgment dated 30/9/93. The land was finally restored to the petitioners on 30/6/94. According to the petitioners, when they were carrying out agricultural operations in their coffee estate, by Ext.P5 letter they were informed that the land was included at Sl. No. 9 of Ext.P6, declaring it to be an ecologically fragile land under the provisions of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Ordinance, 2001.

(3.) IN the meanwhile, in terms of Rule 18 of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Rules, 2007, notified on 3/2/07, a Committee consisting of the Divisional Forest Officer, Kozhikode, the Working Plan Officer, Kozhikode and the Technical Assistant to Conservator of Forests, Northern Circle, Kannur was constituted and the Committee inspected the land belonging to the petitioners and submitted its report on 19/3/07. When the petitioners appeared for personal hearing on 30/3/07, they inter alia submitted that they were not aware of the committee's report and that the committee did not put them on notice whey they visited the land and on this basis, requested for one more inspection by the Committee with notice to them so that they could convince the Committee that the land does not answer the definition of Ecologically Fragile Land. It is seen that reiterating this request, they have also send Ext.P9 to the 2nd respondent.