IMPORTANT POINTS
Rule 21A (v)(7) of the EFL Rules stipulates that the report of the Committee with dissent notes, if any, should be submitted to the PCCF with the signatures of all the members who were present during the inspection. As per Clause (9) of Sub-rule (v) of Rule 21A, on receipt of the report, the PCCF can conduct appropriate further enquiry and if necessary, require the applicant to produce further documents. Rule 21A(v)(10) stipulates that along with his detailed report and recommendation, the PCCF should submit the report of the Committee and the details if any, of the further enquiry conducted by the PCCF. The decision of the Government should be based on all the materials thus forwarded.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner was the owner of 2.15 Acres of land in Erumayur Village in Palakkad District. While the petitioner was in occupation and enjoyment of the property, the Government issued notification dated 01.09.2009, under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Land) Act, 2003, (for short 'EFL Act'), notifying the petitioner's property to be ecologically fragile land vested in the Government. Thereupon, the petitioner raised a dispute by submitting an application under Section 10A(1) of the EFL Act. The first respondent; Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (for short “PCCF”) before whom the application was filed, referred the matter to the Ecologically Fragile Land Claim Dispute Redressal Committee (for short “the Committee”) constituted under Section 10B. The Committee inspected the petitioner's land and furnished a report to the PCCF, recommending to retain the land as ecologically fragile land. The PCCF forwarded the report along with his recommendations to the Government. Based on the recommendation of the Committee, the Government issued Ext.P12, directing the first respondent to maintain the petitioner's land as ecologically fragile land. The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P12 and for a declaration that the procedure adopted by the Committee is in gross violation of the relevant rules and the prescribed procedure.

2. Heard Sri.P.Babukumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sandesh Raja, learned Special Government Pleader (Forest).

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, after the petitioner came to be in ownership and possession of the land, a notification was issued under Section 3 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, (for short, 'Vesting and Assignment Act') declaring the property to be private forest vested in the Government. The petitioner filed an original application before the Forest Tribunal, claiming exemption from vesting in terms of Section 3 (2) of the Vesting and Assignment Act. The original application was allowed under Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal dated 30.01.1980. According to the learned Counsel, in spite of repeated requests, the property was not restored to the petitioner's possession. Instead, a notification under the EFL Act was issued 29 years later, to scuttle the restoration. Contention is advanced based on the report of the Committee that, majority of the members of the Committee had recommended for excluding the land from the purview of EFL, in spite of which, recommendation was made to retain the land as EFL. In support of this contention, attention is drawn to Ext.P8 report of the Committee wherein the Divisional Forest Officer, the MLA of Alathur Constituency, the Grama Panchayat President and the Agricultural Officer had opined that the property should be excluded from EFL. It is pointed out that four out of seven members of the Committee having favoured exclusion of the property from the purview of EFL, recommendation to the contrary in Ext.P8 is unsustainable. The learned Counsel submitted that the decision of the Government being based on the faulty recommendation of the Committee, the same is also liable to be invalidated.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the findings of the four members, recommending exclusion of the land from EFL, was made without understanding the purpose of the inspection and scope of the report under Section 10(A)(3)of the EFL Act. It is contended that the PCCF is not bound by the recommendation of the Committee and should have forwarded it to the Government along with his recommendation mandated under Section 10A(4) and the Government should have rendered its final decision thereon. It is pointed out that, going by Rule 21A of the EFL Rules, 2007, the PCCF is empowered to conduct further enquiries, even after receipt of the Committee’s report, before making his independent recommendation. It is hence contended that, irresp