IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
Sunny Samuel, S/o P.C.Samuel - Appellant
Versus
The Government Of Kerala – Respondent
M.F.A[F].Nos.54, 55 and 56 of 2015
Decided on : 16-01-2023
Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act 2003 - Section 10, 2(c), (b), (e) – Properties - Not ecologically fragile lands - Declaration was sought for in all O.As that scheduled properties are not ecologically fragile lands - Property is not established to be an ecologically fragile land in terms of Section 2(b) r/w section 2(c) of EFL Act. (Para 16)
Finding of the Court: Ext.A6 throws light into state of affairs prevailing in scheduled property before issuance of notification under E.F.L Act, which according to Court has some significance - Upon perusing impugned common order, finding in paragraph no.18 that, grass is an undergrowth and that scheduled property would attract definition of forest in as much as it is hilly and embedded with grass, cannot be sustained – Court also cannot approve logic of Tribunal in accepting argument of learned Special Government Pleader that since property lie at a height of 1053 meters above sea level, there could only be few trees therein, for, definition of forest under Section 2(c) does not permit of such an interpretation – Court find that scheduled properties does not answer requirements of an ecologically fragile land as defined in Section 2(b), r/w Section 2(c) of E.F.L Act, even when Court find that applicants failed to prove exemption on basis of cultivation claimed.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Jayachandran, J.
1. Three original applications, O.A Nos. 24, 25 and 26 of 2010, were filed under Section 10 of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act 2003 ['EFL Act', for short] before the Special Tribunal, Palakkad. All the O.As were dismissed by impugned common order dated 30.03.2015. M.F.A.56/2015 is carried from the dismissal of O.A.No.24/2010, M.F.A 55/2015 from O.A.25/2010 and M.F.A 54/2015 from O.A.26/2010. The aggrieved applicants are the appellants.
2. Facts
Except for the pleadings tracing the title, the pleadings in all the three O.As are similar. We will first deal with the particular facts tracing the title in each O.A, hereunder:
O.A.No.24/2010
The scheduled property having an extent of 8 acres, which remains unsurveyed of Akambadam Village, Nilambur was part of the large extent of land which belonged to Poyyapurath Padmini Kettilamma of Kottayam Kovilakam, as jenmi. One Kunhali Haji and another took the land on oral lease long before 1963 and cultivated the same. The land, even at that time, stood cleared, devoid of any trees, bushes and undergrowth. One Mariam and Mary took the land on lease from the said Kunhali and another and continued cultivation. As per Exts.A1 to A4 title deeds of the year 2000, the applicant Valsan obtained the scheduled property.
O.A.No.25/2010
The extent of the scheduled property is 13.98 acres of the same village. Here also, the title upto Kunhali and another is the same. From them, one Appachan, Thomas, Mary, Chandi, Annakutty and Thomas took the scheduled property on lease and continued agricultural operations therein. They, as also, the applicant got purchase certificates from the Land Tribunal, Manjeri. The said 6 persons sold their leasehold rights over the property to the applicant, Daliya Resorts Private Limited, as per Ext.A25 to A30 documents of the years 2002, 2003 and 2007.
O.A.No.26/2010
The extent of the scheduled property is 7 acres, again of the same village. Here also, the title upto Kunhali and another is the same. One N.K.Joseph took the land on oral lease from them and cultivated the land. As per Exts.A63 to A65 title deeds of the year 2000, one Gopalakrishnan purchased the scheduled property. He executed Ext.A83 will bequeathing the scheduled property in the name of the applicant, Sunny Samuel.
3. Common Pleadings:
The scheduled properties are not ecologically fragile lands as defined under the E.F.L Act. The lands were brought under cultivation with tapioca, plantain, seasonal crops, arecanut, coffee, cardamom etc. long before 02.06.2000, the date on which the E.F.L Act came into force. Much before 1963, the lands were cultivated with the above referred crops. The lands have no characteristic features of an ecologically fragile land. The land is free of trees and undergrowth and hence not ecologically fragile. The scheduled properties are grassy lands, devoid of any tree. On such premise, a declaration was sought for in all the O.As that the scheduled properties are not ecologically fragile lands.
4. The Divisional Forest Officer concerned filed written statement contending inter alia as follows:
The scheduled properties are ecologically fragile lands in terms of notification no. EFL-10-1406/2010 dated 21.04.2010 and the same is vested with the Government as part of 34 acres collectively. The properties are situated in survey no.1293 as per the vesting notification and presently remain as unsurveyed land of Akambadam village, Nilambur Taluk. The scheduled properties are lying contiguous to vested forests known as Ex-Manjeri Kovilakam Pantheerayiram (12000) malavaram. The properties are full of grass, with scattered growth of forest trees like vatta, veetti, nelli and other shola trees. The area is part of grass land eco-system and hence, ecologically very important. The area is home to number of animals: ungulates, carnivorous, rodents, lizards and snakes, besides representing rich avi-fauna. The grass land patches served as cru
Government of Kerala v. Jacob Thomas Arikupuram [2019(4) KHC 625]
SupremeToday
The court affirmed that the property in question does not qualify as 'Ecologically Fragile Land' or 'Forest' under the Kerala Forest Act, based on the evidence presented.
The court clarified that a property exempted under the Vesting Act may still be classified as ecologically fragile under the EFL Act, emphasizing the need for evidence of cultivation as of the appoin....
State having deprived owner of the possession of land and legal right to cultivate it cannot take advantage of its own wrong.
The EFL Act requires a nature assessment of land as of the appointed date, not merely the intent to cultivate, to determine ecological status.
The principal cultivation or existence of tea plantation, for the land to be excluded from the definition of EFL Act, has to be established as existing on 02.06.2000, the appointed day under the EFL ....
'Forest', which speaks of lands which are principally covered with naturally grown trees and undergrowth and includes any recognized, declared, protected or otherwise forest land.
Under EFL Act, applicant has to prove that land is principally cultivated with long duration crops or is a plantation, or beneficial enjoyment for a building, which alone can exclude it from definiti....
Property not 'forest' under EFL Act if principally planted teak; inadequate inspection requires remand.
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.