K. NARAYANABHAT Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Tribunal for Ecological Fragile Land cases (I Additional District Judge, Kozhikode) in O.A.No. 16/2014. The appellant is the applicant who filed an application under Section 10(1) of the Kerala Forest (vesting and management of ecologically fragile lands) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 2003') and Rule 3 of the Kerala Forest (vesting and management of ecologically fragile lands) Tribunal Rules 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules 2007') seeking a declaration that application schedule properties are not ecologically fragile lands vested in Government and also to set aside the impugned notification No. EFL.10-40/2003 dated 26.5.2015. According to the applicant, the application schedule properties belong to him by virtue of the registered assignment deed Nos. 1184/1991 and 1185/1991 of SRO, Badiadka. The applicant had planted coconut trees, arecanut trees, mango trees, jack trees etc in the properties much before the commencement of the Act, 2003. The applicant had been enjoying the application schedule properties ever since the purchase. While the properties were in enjoyment of the applicant, the officials under the Forest Department tried to disturb the peaceful possession of the applicant. So in the year 2001, the applicant filed OS No. 78/2001 before the Munsiff Court, Kasargod seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the forest officials from trespassing into the properties and the said suit was decreed as prayed for. Though, an appeal was filed against the said judgment and decree by the respondents the appellate court also confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Though, a second appeal was also filed before this court as RSA No. 590/2006 that was also dismissed as per the judgment of this Court dated 31.7.2014. When the applicant was enjoying the properties, the forest officials again came to the properties and prevented the applicant from carrying out agricultural operations. The respondents have no authority to interfere with the peaceful possession of the applicant as the application schedule properties are not ecologically fragile lands vested with the Government. On the above premises, they filed the present application seeking the declaration referred to above.

(2.) The respondents challenged the said application contending that the application schedule properties are ecologically fragile lands vested with the Government under the Act 2003. A property measuring 1.83 hectares was notified as EFL 10-40/2003 dated 26.5.2015 as ecologically fragile lands and the application schedule property is also included in the said land under the said notification. So it is not correct to say that there are arecanut trees, coconut trees, mango trees, jack trees etc in the application schedule properties. So also application schedule properties are part of Kanakamajlu reserved forest. As per the notification, the right, title and interest of the applicant are vested in the Government free from all encumbrance and the area is predominantly covered with natural vegetation. It is true that the aforesaid suit was filed before the Munsiff Court, Kasargod against the respondents and the same was decreed and though it went up to this Court in second appeal, this Court also confirmed the decree and judgment passed by the Munsiff Court.

(3.) On the aforesaid rival contentions, both parties adduced evidence which consists of oral testimony of PW1, RW1 and CW1 and Exts A1 to A11, B1 to B8 and C1 and C2. After considering the aforesaid evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the said application on a finding that the application schedule properties are ecologically fragile lands vested in Government and consequently the impugned notification by the custodian cannot be set aside. The legality and correctness of the aforesaid finding is assailed in this appeal.