S. Siri Jagan, J.

This appeal is filed by the State of Kerala as the 1st appellant and the Custodian (Ecologically Fragile Lands) and Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (E&TW), State of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, as the second appellant, challenging the order of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Tribunal, Palakkad, (hereinafter referred to as the 'EFL Tribunal') in OA No. 32/2008, whereby the Tribunal declared that the land belonging to the respondent herein, which was declared as ecologically fragile lands under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003, (hereinafter referred to as the 'EFL Act') is not an ecologically fragile land and therefore is not vested in the Government under the said Act. The facts leading to the appeal are as summarised under :-

The land involved in this appeal was originally declared by the Custodian of Private Forests by notification in the Gazette, as a private forest vested in the Government under the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Vesting Act"). The respondent challenged the said notification issued under the Vesting Act in O.A.No.1016/1975 before the Forest Tribunal. In that O.A, the Forest Tribunal held that the land is a private forest, but eligible for exemption from vesting under Section 3(3) of the Vesting Act. M.F.A.No.340/1981 filed by the State, before this Court was dismissed by judgment dated 04.11.1982. Pursuant to the said judgment, the land in question was restored to the respondent on 12.01.2000. Subsequently, when the EFL Act came into force, the appellants published a notification in the Gazette declaring that the land in question vests with the Government as an ecologically fragile land, by virtue of Section 3 (1) of the EFL Act. The respondent filed the O.A, before the EFL Tribunal, challenging the said notification, contending that the land in question is not an ecologically fragile land and does not come within the purview of the definition of 'ecologically fragile land' in Section 2(b)(i) of the EFL Act. After taking evidence, including the evidence through an Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the land in question does not answer the definition of 'ecologically fragile land' under Section 2(b)(i) of the Act . Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the O.A, declaring that the land is not an ecologically fragile land. That order of the Tribunal is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the State and the Custodian of Ecologically Fragile Lands.

2. The contention of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant is that, insofar as the Tribunal under the Vesting Act had held that the land in question is a private forest, which is eligible for exemption from vesting under Section 3 (3) of the Vesting Act, the land in question is a forest land and since the same is bounded on three sides by vested forests and the said land predominantly supports natural vegetation, which are the ingredients necessary for bringing the same within the purview of definition of 'ecologically fragile land' under Section 2(b)(i), the land vests with the State by virtue of Section 3(1) of the EFL Act as an ecologically fragile land. It is submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that the evidence fully supports the said contention and therefore, the Tribunal went wrong in holding that the land in question is not an ecologically fragile land.

3. In answer, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the land in question is not a forest land at all. According to him, there is no evidence to support that the land is a forest land. He would submit that natural vegetation grew up in the land only because the appellants illegally retained possession of the land for years as land vested in the Government under the Vesting Act, even after th