ARAKKAL SARAMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner owns an item of property measuring 75 cents obtained by her in terms of Ext.P1 assignment deed on 21.4.1995. On 13.4.2012, the second respondent, the Divisional Forest Officer, Kalpetta, made a proposal to the third respondent, the Chief Conservator of Forests, Kannur to notify a few properties including the property held by the petitioner as ecologically fragile lands, in terms of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (the Act). Ext.P2 is the proposal. It is stated by the petitioner that the third respondent has forwarded Ext.P2 proposal to the fourth respondent, the Custodian of the ecologically fragile lands under the Act. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that Ext.P2 proposal made by the second respondent is unsustainable in law. According to the petitioner, the second respondent, or for that matter any of the officers including the Custodian of the ecologically fragile lands under the Act has no authority to make a proposal to declare a land as ecologically fragile land. The petitioner, therefore, challenges Ext.P2 proposal on that ground in the writ petition.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent. The stand taken by the second respondent in the counter affidavit is that there is no illegality in Ext.P2 proposal.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Special Government Pleader for Forests.