IMPORTANT POINT
Any person aggrieved by an action of the State Government under section 4(1) of the Act, 2003 is entitled to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal within six months from the date of notification issued under Section 4(1) of Act, 2003 or within such time as the Government may notify.

JUDGMENT :

Shaji P. Chaly, J.

The appeal is filed by the petitioner in the writ petition challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P(C). No.20595 of 2020 dated 6.10.2020, whereby the writ petition was dismissed holding that appellant is free to approach the Tribunal as per Section 10 of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2003'), if the appellant is aggrieved by Ext.P1 notification issued by the Government of Kerala, Forest and Wildlife Department, dated 19.6.2020. It was also held that there would not be any legal impediment for the Tribunal for entertaining such a petition in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Thresiamma Varghese and Others v. State of Kerala [2018 (1) KHC 327]. The appellant was also given the liberty to file a petition for interim orders, which was directed to be considered by the Tribunal and the writ petition was disposed of leaving open all the contentions raised by both parties. Thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment, this appeal is preferred.

2. Basic material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The appellant is a Private Limited Company and alleged to be the owner and title holder of a coffee plantation with an ad measurement 146.76 Acres equivalent to 59.41 Hectares. While so, Act 2003 came into force with effect from 2.6.2000, whereby ecologically fragile land in possession of any person, having characteristics as prescribed under Section 2(b) (i), any forest land or any portion thereof held by any person and lying contiguous to or encircled by a reserved forest of a vested forest or any other forest land owned by the Government and predominantly supporting natural vegetation; (ii) any land declared to be an ecologically fragile land by the Government by notification in the Gazette under Section 4 of the Act, 2003, became vested with the State Government /declared to be vested with the Government .

3. It is the case of the Appellant that, by virtue of the definition of Forest under Section 2(c) of Act 2003, only land principally covered with naturally grown trees and undergrowth and includes any forest statutorily recognized and declared as reserved forest, protected forest or otherwise, but does not include any land which is used principally for the cultivation of crops of long duration such as tea, coffee, rubber, pepper, cardamom, coconut, arecanut or cashew or any other sites of residential buildings and surroundings essential for the convenient use of such buildings. Therefore, according to the appellant, the property belonging to the appellant situated in Survey No.581/P of Kallamala Village of Mannarkkad Taluk is a plantation as on the date of commencement of the Act i.e., 02.06.2000 but was notified as an ecologically fragile land. Any how, Ext.P1 notification dated 19.6.2020 was issued by the State Government admittedly under section 3 (2) of Act 2003, which according to the appellant is after 20 years from the date of commencement of the Act and that too, in respect of a non-forest land i.e., plantation, which is totally exempted from the purview of the Act, 2003. The sum and substance of the legal contention advanced by the appellant is that the Act 2003 contemplates two kinds of vesting of ecologically fragile lands i.e., one under Section 3 and the other under Section 4 of the Act, 2003.

4. Vesting under Section 3 of the Act can only be forest land whereas, under Section 4 (1), the Government can declare any land to be ecologically fragile land and for that purpose, it has to get a report of the expert committee under Section 15 of the Act, 2003 and then make a declaration, after hearing the land owner. The case projected by the appellant is that, unlike the statutory procedure and safeguards under Section 4, the notification under Section 3(2) can only be issued within five years from the commencement of the Act, which