IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ASHOK BHUSHAN AND P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ.
PLANTERS FORUM & ANR. – PETITIONERS
Vs.
STATE OF KERALA & ANR. - RESPONDENTS
W.P(C) Nos.26691 of 2010,
W.P(C) Nos.24819 & 32825 of 2003,
W.P(C) Nos.10738, 11110, 30785, 9843, 3795, 7042, 34524, 30930 and 18134 of 2006
W.P(C) Nos.29245, 22661, 29466, 27296, 32740, 32767, 36454, 29199, 14064, 34575, 25801, 12594, 14298, 2871, 8127, 1006, 1767, 8412, 10770, 20694, 25835, 25867, 34554, 27821, 29101 & 30462 of 2007,
W.P(C) Nos.3210, 23798, 1114, 24503, 15142 & 11899 of 2008,
W.P(C) Nos.10235, 14797, 31479, 15324, 34320 & 32064 of 2009,
W.P(C) No.22764 of 2010, 32309 & 1951 of 2010
W.P(C) No.6814 of 2013, W.P(C) No.3757 of 2014
&
W.A. No.535 of 2014
Decided On : 17.11.2014
Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Schedule VII List III Entries 17A, 17B, 18, 42, Articles 14, 19, 31A - Held, Court is of the considered opinion that the legislation, the 2003 Act is fully covered by Entry Nos.17A and 17B of list III and Entries 18 and 42 of list II and the submission of the petitioners that it was only the Parliament which could have enacted law under Entry No.97 in list I cannot be accepted - Stock Holme Declaration on the Human Rights in the United Nation conference from 5 to 16 June, 1972, one of the principal International declarations was a factor in the insertion of Article 48A in the Constitution - But it cannot be said that the 2003 enactment has been enacted by the State Legislature to give effect to any international agreement - Article 31A of the Constitution does not protect legislation, which does not relate to agrarian reform - Court conclude that 2003 Act is not protected by Article 31A of the Constitution of India - Apex Court in Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. ((1983) 1 SCC 147)had laid down that when constitutional validity of an Act is challenged, validity of the legislation is not to be defended merely by an affidavit filed on behalf of the State - In view of the forging discussion we are of the considered opinion that the 2003 Act has been enacted to give effect to the directive principle of state policy as enshrined in Article 39(b) of the Constitution - Constitution Bench judgments of the Apex Court as relied on by the parties, do contemplate both a specific proposal and specific assent as well as general assent - forest land which is used principally for cultivation of crops of long duration, sites of residential buildings and surroundings have been exempted from the ambit of ecologically fragile land makes the provision reasonable non-arbitrary - It has also been submitted that lands which are separated by river, or streams have also treated as contiguous. It is useful to note S.2(d) which defined land as "land includes rivers, streams and its origin and other water bodies - It cannot be said that classification is irrational or without any basis. One more reason for rational classification between land vested under Section 3 and notified under Section 4(2) has been explained which gives justification for classification - Court hold that the 2003 Act does not violate Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution nor can be held to be arbitrary, discriminatory, devoid of any rational classification - 2003 Act envisaged definition on the concept i.e., Ecologically Fragile Land, and gave the overriding effect to override the judgment or order is fully covered within the valid legislation and Section 3(1) cannot be treated to be a legislation overriding the judgment rendered on the 1971 Act - Rules 2007 explain the statutory functions of the Custodian and the Scheme delineated by S.19 as well as Rules 17, 19 and 20 fully proves that the Custodian acts quasi judicially while deciding an application under S.19(3)(b) - Section 19(3) is thus for the above limited purpose and Rules 17 to 20 have been made to effectuate the purpose - Court is of the view that any enquiry or decision under Section 19 or Sections 9(3) and 10(b), the judgments delivered in the context of plantation for personal cultivation etc are relevant and can be relied for in appropriate cases
Ashok Bhushan, Ag. C.J.
The Principal Challenge in this bunch of Writ Petitions is to the constitutional validity of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2003 Act"). Apart from the above challenge, other reliefs have also been claimed in some of the Writ Petitions. The bunch also includes a few Writ Petitions filed as Public Interest Litigation supporting the 2003 Act and challenging the action of the respondents in excluding some of the estates as not being ecologically fragile land. The issues raised in this bunch of Writ Petitions are of public importance and relevant for human life and nature.
2. For appreciating the issues raised in these Writ Petitions and for answering the issues, it is necessary to note the facts of some of the Writ Petitions of this bunch. Most of the Writ Petitions raise similar question of facts and law and hence it shall be sufficient to note facts of some of the Writ Petitions which may suffice the decision in all the Writ Petitions. Writ Petition No.26691 of 2010 which has been argued in extenso is being treated as the leading Writ Petition. Apart from noticing the facts of Writ Petition No.26691 of 2010, facts in some other Writ Petitions including some Writ Petitions filed as Public Interest Litigation need to be noted for having a complete view of the issues and challenges raised before us.
Writ Petition No.26691 of 2010 - (Planters Forum and Another v. State of Kerala (Leading Writ Petition)
3. First petitioner is a registered private Trust formed with the object of benefiting planters and cultivators of cardamom, pepper, vanila, others spices, rubber, tea, coffee, other cash crops and food crops. One of the objects of the Trust is to take up issues pertaining to planters and cultivators who are the beneficiaries of the Trust and particularly to challenge the 2003 Act on behalf of the beneficiaries. Second petitioner along with his sisters owned an extent of 25 hectares of land in Old Sy. No.1226 (part) of Vellarimala Village in Vythiri Taluk of Wayanad District. After enforcement of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1971 Act) petitioners' land was treated as having vested in the State Government. Petitioner raised a challenge before the Forest Tribunal under Sec.8 of the 1971 Act. The Tribunal allowed the claim of the petitioner and held that the property of the second petitioner is plantation being exempted under the 1971 Act from vesting. A Notification under Sec.3(2) of the 2003 Act dated 24.06.2006 was issued notifying 25 hectares of land of the 2nd petitioner as ecologically fragile land vested in the Government as per Sec.3(1) of the 2003 Act. Petitioners filed W.P(C) No.29049 of 2007 before this Court challenging the Notification on the ground that the land found to be a plantation and exempted from vesting under the 1971 Act could not be the subject matter of vesting under Sec.3 of the 2003 Act. In the above Writ Petition this Court directed the Custodian of ecologically fragile land to adjudicate the matter under Sec.19(3)(b) of the 2003 Act. The second petitioner filed S.L.P(C) No.8374 of 2009 before the Supreme Court against the above judgment of the High Court which SLP is said to be pending. In this Writ Petition the petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the 2003 Act. The 2003 Act was preceded by Ordinance Nos.6/2000, 8/2000, 3/2001 and 16/2001. The 2003 Act was passed by the State Legislature and notified on 06.06.2005. Section 1(2) further provided that the 2003 Act shall be deemed to have come into force on the 2nd day of June, 2000. The 2003 Act also received the assent of the President of India on 25.04.2005. Petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the 2003 Act principally on the grounds of (i) lack of legislative competence, (ii) violation of specific fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution
Union of India v. Shri. Harbhajan Singh Dhillon [(1971) 2 SCC 779]
E.V.Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2005)1 SCC 394]
M.Karunanidhi v. Union of India [1979 (3) SCC 431]
K.T.Plantation v. State of Karnataka [(2011) 4 SCC 1]
Sri Ram Ram Narain v. state of Bombay (AIR 1959 SC 459)
Atma Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1959 SC 519)
Kavalappa Kochuny v. State of Madras & others (AIR 1960 SC 1080)
Balmadies Plantations v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1972 SC 2240)
Prag Ice Oil Mills v. Union of India [(1978)3 SCC 459]
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [(1997) 1 SCC 388]
T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India ([2002] 10 SCC 606)
State of T.N. v. L. Abu Kavur Bai
Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
State of Karnataka v. Ranganath Reddy [(1977) 4 SCC 471]
Kaiser-I- Hind (P) Ltd. v. National Textile Corpn. (Maharashtra North) Ltd. [(2002)8 SCC 182]
Rajiv Sarin and another v. State of Uttarakhand and others [(2011)8 SCC 708]
K.T. Plantation Private Limited and another v. State of Karnataka [(2011) 9 SCC 1]
K. Sankaran Nair v. Devaki Amma Malathy Amma and others [(1996) 11 SCC 428]
Tamil Nadu v. Aroon Sugars Ltd. [(1997) 1 SCC 326]
Indian Aluminium Co. and others v. State of Kerala and others [(1996) 7 SCC 637]
S.S. Bola and others v. B.D. Sardana and others [(1997) 8 SCC 522]
Virender Singh Hooda and others v. State of Haryana and another [(2004) 12 SCC 588]
State of Kerala v. Kumari Varma (2011 (1) KLT 1008)
Indian National Congress v. Institute of Social Welfare [(2002) 5 SCC 685]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.