Back
2025 Supreme(KER) 897
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SATHISH NINAN, SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.
State Of Kerala - Appellant
Versus
Sameer Mottammel, S/o. Assu - respondents
OP(FT) No. 19 Of 2024
Decided on : 11-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADV.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SPL.GP (FOREST)
For the Respondent: BY ADV ADV.EDAMANA NARAYANAN .
The court emphasized the need to preserve undergrowth as material evidence under the EFL Act until an expert report is completed.
Headnote:
(A) Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 - Definition of 'Forest' under Section 2(c) - The Tribunal permitted agricultural operations but restricted the removal of undergrowth to preserve material evidence pending expert analysis - The court emphasized the importance of maintaining existing undergrowth until a report is filed by the expert Commission. (Paras 2, 4, 6, 7)
(B) Agricultural Operations - The necessity of conducting agricultural operations must not compromise the preservation of evidence relevant to the determination of land classification under the EFL Act. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The State challenged the Forest Tribunal's orders allowing petitioners to conduct agricultural operations, arguing that clearing undergrowth could destroy evidence crucial for determining land classification under the EFL Act.
Findings of Court:
The court directed that the permission to clear undergrowth be kept in abeyance until the expert Commission files its report, emphasizing the need to maintain existing undergrowth as material evidence.
Issues: The main issues addressed were the necessity of agricultural operations versus the preservation of undergrowth as material evidence for land classification under the EFL Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the definition of 'Forest' under the EFL Act necessitates the preservation of undergrowth until an expert analysis is completed, highlighting the importance of evidence in determining land classification.
Result: Original Petitions disposed of with directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners claim exemption (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. importance of undergrowth (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. directions for expert analysis (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT :
Sathish Ninan, J.
The State challenges the orders of the Forest Tribunal permitting the petitioners in the Original Application to do agricultural operations in the subject properties.
2. The respondents herein are the petitioners in the respective Original Applications before the Forest Tribunal, claiming exemption from vesting under the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (EFL Act). Pending the Original Applications, on the interlocutory applications filed by the respective applicants, the Tribunal passed orders permitting agricultural operations. The operative portion, which are verbatim in all these matters, read thus;
“Hence, the order is passed as follows: the petitioner is permitted to do such operations by manuring the existing crops, collecting the yield, clearing the undergrowth, cropping the stems in the petition schedule property. But it is made clear that under the cover of clearing the undergrowth, the petitioner should not cut and remove trees or change the nature and character of the property. He should not use any pesticides or fungicides as a part of agricultural operations. It is also made clear that the above agricultural operations are confined to the parts of the property where there are coffee plants.”
3. We have heard Shri.Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) on behalf of the State and Shri.E. Narayanan, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents.
4. As per the impugned orders, the petitioners have been permitted to do agricultural operations in the respective properties. The main grievance of the petitioners is that, though an expert Commission has been appointed to ascertain the nature of the properties, he is yet to file a report. A survey and analysis with reference to sample plots is necessary to find out the nature of the properties as on the relevant date, namely, 02.06.2000. As per the definition of 'Forest' in Section 2 (c) of the EFL Act, “Forest means any land principally covered by naturally grown trees and undergrowth …..”. Therefore, the existence of undergrowth, its age, etc., are very much significant for deciding the issue involved in the Original Applications. As per the impugned orders, the Tribunal has permitted even clearing of the undergrowth. This would amount to destruction of material evidence, it is contended.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents would on the other hand contend that, to conduct the agricultural operations, it is necessary to remove the undergrowth. The permission granted to remove the undergrowth is only in furtherance of that purpose. 6. On due consideration of the rival arguments and also the definition of 'Forest' under the EFL Act, we find force in the submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader. The definition of 'Forest' under the EFL Act refers to undergrowth. Therefore, ascertaining of the same and its particulars, including the age, are very much relevant for the final determination of the issue involved in the Original Applications. The expert Commission is yet to file report. Sample plots analysis is to be done. Till such process is completed and the expert files his report, it is necessary to maintain the existing undergrowth as it is. The order is liable to be modified accordingly.
7. In the light of the above, the Original Petitions are disposed of with the following directions;
i) The Tribunal shall direct the expert Commissioner appointed in the respective cases to conduct a sample plot analysis and include the same in his report.
ii) The permission granted in the impugned orders to clear the undergrowth is kept in abeyance till the expert Commissioner files his report.
iii) The Tribunal shall direct the expert Commissioner to complete the inspection and file the report as expeditiously as possible, and at any ra
