Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SATHISH NINAN, P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ
Kinattukara Metal Crusher Unit – Appellant
Versus
Government Of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conclusion and judgment outcome (Para 1) |
| 2. facts of land ownership and classification (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. legal argument on property classification (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. definitions under the efl act and interpretation (Para 6 , 10 , 10 , 12) |
| 5. court's reasoning on land classification (Para 15 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
Sathish Ninan, J.
The original application seeking declaration that the application schedule properties are not ecologically fragile lands and are not vested with the Government under the Kerala Forests (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the EFL Act”), was dismissed by the Tribunal. The applicants are in appeal.
2. The OA schedule consists of two items of properties, item 1 having an extent of 67.73 Ares situated in Survey No.1131 of Peerumedu village, and item 2 having an extent of 99.15 Ares in Survey No.1360 of Peerumedu village. The items lie together as a single holding. The properties belong to the applicants under Exts.A1 and A2 Sale Deeds of the year 2002. Exts.A3 and A4 are the basic title deeds, which are “Pattas” issued under the Land Assignment Act. A granite quarry is being conducted in the property. A
The absence of trees in land classification negates its designation as ecologically fragile under the relevant Act.
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 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 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 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 State cannot assert a property as ecologically fragile if its inaction contributed to the property's condition, necessitating remand for further evidence.
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.
As per definition of an ’ecologically fragile land’ vide Section 2(b), forest land should predominantly support vegetation, which again is natural vegetation.
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.
Property not 'forest' under EFL Act if principally planted teak; inadequate inspection requires remand.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
