JUDGMENT :

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

1. This appeal under Section 11 of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (the Act), is directed against the judgment dated 31.12.2010 in Original Application No. 2 of 2008 on the files of the Tribunal for Ecologically Fragile Lands Cases, Kozhikode. The appellants were the applicants in the said original application.

2. 6.0720 Hectares of land situated in Re-Survey No. 8/1A1A2 of Peria Village, Mananthavadi Taluk, Wayanad District has been declared to be ecologically fragile land by the Government in terms of a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. The case of the appellants is that the notified land is part of 30 acres owned by them and cultivated by them with cardamom, coffee, pepper etc. from the year 1970; that the said land does not fall within the definition of ‘forest’ in terms of the provisions of the Act and that the same cannot, therefore, be declared as an ecologically fragile land. The appellants, therefore, sought a declaration to that effect in the original application.

3. A written statement has been filed by the third respondent, the Divisional Forest Officer in the original application contending, among others, that the declared land is lying contiguous to the vested forest in Re-Survey No. 8/1A1A2 and that although there are cultivations of cardamom, coffee, pepper etc., it is an area with predominant natural vegetation which supports important endemic flora and fauna of western ghats and hence, liable to be declared as an ecologically fragile land.

4. On the side of the appellants, the first appellant gave evidence as PW-1. Two other persons were also examined on the side of the appellants as PW-2 and PW-3, of which PW-2 was the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the proceedings and PW-3 was the Expert who assisted the Advocate Commissioner. Exts.A1 to A30 were the documents produced by the appellants, which include documents relating to the registration obtained by the appellants for cultivation of coffee and cardamom in the land owned by them including the declared land. Exts.C1 and C1(a) are the report and sketch prepared by the Advocate Commissioner. Ext.C1(b) is the report furnished to the Advocate Commissioner by the Expert and Ext.C1(c) is the survey sketch of the declared land. On the side of the respondents, the concerned Forest Range Officer gave evidence as RW1. Exts.B1 to B4 were the documents produced on the side of the respondents.

5. The Tribunal found that the notified land is an area having predominant natural vegetation and a wildlife habitat encircled by vested forest on its three sides. The Tribunal also found that the registration claimed to have been obtained by the appellants for cultivation of coffee and cardamom is not in respect of the notified land. It also found that the boundaries of the land scheduled in the original application shown in the title deeds of the appellants do not match with the boundaries of the notified land. In the light of the said findings, the Tribunal dismissed the original application. As noted, the appellants are aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned Special Government Pleader (Forests).

7. The essence of the elaborate submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the notified land does not fall within the definition of ‘forest’ in terms of the provisions of the Act inasmuch as it is a land which is used principally for cultivation of crops of long duration, such as coffee, pepper, cardamom, arecanut etc. and that the declaration of the same as an ecologically fragile land in terms of the provisions of the Act is therefore bad in law. The learned counsel has taken us through the reports submitted by the Advocate Commissioner as also the Expert who assisted the Advocate Commissioner. The learned counsel has also taken us through the evidence given by the Advocate Commissioner in t