Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 8129
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
K.P.PRABHAKARAN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 33122/2018
E.NARAYANAN, T.P.SAJAN, SPL.GP(FOREST), SANGEETH.C.U, GP
The court found that the petitioner's land was excluded from the notification declaring it as Ecologically Fragile Land, addressing the main grievance of the petitioner.
Headnote:
Ecologically Fragile Land - Writ Petition - Sections 3, 4 of the Ecologically Fragile Land (Protection of Sensitive Coastal and Marine Areas) Act - The court found that the petitioner's land was excluded from the notification declaring it as Ecologically Fragile Land, and hence the main grievance of the petitioner was addressed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the notification declaring certain lands, including the petitioner's, as Ecologically Fragile Land under the Ecologically Fragile Land (Protection of Sensitive Coastal and Marine Areas) Act. The court directed the third respondent to file a statement, which revealed that the petitioner's land had been excluded from the notification.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's land was excluded from the notification declaring it as Ecologically Fragile Land, and hence the main grievance of the petitioner was addressed.
Issues: Whether the notification declaring the petitioner's land as Ecologically Fragile Land is valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the statement filed by the third respondent, which confirmed that the petitioner's land had been excluded from the notification declaring it as Ecologically Fragile Land.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of as the main grievance of the petitioner has been addressed.
The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers:
1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the second respondent to de- notify the petitioner's agricultural lands of 2-3753 Hrs falling under survey numbers 425/1, 426/2, 427/1 and 427/6 along with 0.1020 Hrs of Public Road under Survey Numbers 425/7 and 427/5.
2. To declare that the issuance of an Erratum Notification to the original Notification declaring a land as Ecologically Fragile Land as per section 3 of the EFL Act is illegal. And
3. To direct the respondents to pay the costs of this case to the petitioner.
4. To call for the record leading up to Exhibits P6, 7 and P9 and to quash them by a writ of certiorari or by any other appropriate writ, direction or order.
[SIC]
2.A statement is filed by the 3rd respondent as directed by this Court on 23.06.2020. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the statement:
- ‘4. It is submitted that the erratum notification has been published by the Custodian as per EFL-10-40/2013 dt. 20.01.2015 excluding the land in respect of the petitioner in the survey No. 425/1 and 426/2. From this it is proved beyond doubt that the petitioner's land has not included in the notification as per EFL-10-40/2013 dt.
20.01.2015 and published in Gazatte No.7 dt. 17.02.2015. Moreover the Custodian as per letter No. EFL-13-436/2014 dt. 09.07.2015, EFL-13-436/2014 dt. 19.08.2015, EFL-13- 436/2014 dt.06.08.2017 had informed in writing to the petitioner about the exclusion of his land from the purview of EFL Act. Besides this no obstructions is caused by the forest department for the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the petitioner.
5. It is submitted that the land comprised in survey No. 427/6 (0.3330 Ha) and survey No.425/7, and 427/5 are lands vested in the government as EFL and the lands in these survey nos are included in the land notified as EFL as per the erratum notification No.EFL-10-40/2013 dt.20.01.2015. So it can be seen that the land of 0.3300 Ha in survey No.427/6 and survey No.425/7 and 427/5 do not belong to the petitioner and the same are protected, conserved and managed as EFL by the Forest Department.’
3.It is submitted that the erratum notification has been published by the Custodian excluding the land in respect of the petitioner in the survey No.425/1 and 426/2. From this, it is proved beyond doubt that the above land of the petitioner is not included in the notification and published in Gazette No.7 dated 17.02.2015. If that is the case, the petitioner’s main grievance is redressed.
