IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SATHISH NINAN, P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ
Thomas Varghese, S/O.T.T. Vatghe – Appellant
Versus
Government Of Kerala Represented By District Collector – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sathish Ninan, J.
The original application filed under Section 10 of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act , 2003, (hereinafter referred to as “the EFL Act”) claiming that the application schedule property is not an ecologically fragile land, was dismissed by the Tribunal. The applicant is in appeal.
2. The application schedule property has an extent of 4.55 acres. It is situated in R.S. 69/3, 69/4, 69/5 (old survey 29/01/2012, 19/01/2018 and 19/01/2017) of Marayur Village. Exts.A1 to A3 are the documents of title of the applicant which are of the year 2003. Exts.A5 to A9 are its immediate prior deeds. Out of the same Exts.A5 to A8 are of the year 1988 and Ext.A9 is of the year 1965. Ext.A10 is the basic title deed which is of the year 1959. The property was purchased by the vendor thereunder in a Government auction in the year 1929. Ext.A13 is the notification under the EFL Act.
3. The applicant claimed that the property in question was being cultivated by him and his predecessors with long term crops like pepper, gooseberry, nutmeg, coffee and cocoa. That apart, the property contains Mahagani trees and coconut trees. The land is an ag


The burden of proof lies with the applicant to demonstrate that the property is not ecologically fragile, which was not established, necessitating remand for further examination.
The absence of trees in land classification negates its designation as ecologically fragile under the relevant Act.
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 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....
The court upheld that property not principally covered by trees cannot be classified as forest under the EFL Act, rejecting the State's claim regarding ecologically fragile land.
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 State cannot assert a property as ecologically fragile if its inaction contributed to the property's condition, necessitating remand for further evidence.
The property in question did not meet the statutory definition of ecologically fragile land under the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003.
The classification of land as 'ecologically fragile' under the EFL Act is upheld when sufficient evidence supports the environmental status, and co-sharers have standing to appeal.
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.