The court clarified that exemption from the definition of forest under the EFL Act requires evidence of cultivation with long-duration crops, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT

K.Vinod Chandran, J

The appeal is by the State from an order under S.10 of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (for brevity, the EFL Act) . The applicant claimed exemption over 10.19 acres comprised in Re.Sy.No1518 in Block No.55 of Pudussery East Village, purchased in 1996, as per Ext.A3 document. The said land forms part of 92 acres which was the subject matter of O.A.No.484/1974, under the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 , (for brevity, the Vesting Act). The declaration of exemption granted by the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad, was confirmed in M.F.A.No.401/1978 by this Court and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.3695/1989. Despite the applicant being found eligible and entitled to get the entire property restored, the same was not restored and the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed alternate land to be conceded or compensation to be paid. It was out of the total lands restored and compensated that 10.19 acres were purchased by the applicant. The applicant claimed that the lands were personally cultivated as on 10.5.1971, as found by the Tribunal and confirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

State of Kerala v. Kumari Varma 2011(1) KLT 1008 hence squarely applies was the contention.

2. The Divisional Forest Officer, Palakkad, raised the ground of limitation and disputed the title and ownership over the lands. It was pointed out that the northern boundary of the property lies as a forest and the major portion of the scheduled land is a highly sensitive and fragile land notified as ecologically fragile land on 26.8.2000. The proceedings under the Vesting Act was admitted, but the same has no application in so far as the EFL Act, especially if the land as on the appointed day under EFL Act; viz 2/6/2000, lies as an ecologically fragile land. The property was lying contiguous to vested forest with predominant natural vegetation and there is total absence of cultivation. The entire scheduled property, according to the State, is a thick evergreen forest rich in biodiversity and sustaining wild life including migratory birds. The area is full of rare, endangered and endemic species of wild flora and fauna.

3. The learned Tribunal raised a single issue as to whether the land is ecologically fragile land or not. The Tribunal found title on the applicant based on Exts.A1 to A3 registered deeds. It was found that in the proceedings under the Vesting Act, 75 acres were found to be planted with teak, orange and soft wood, 2 acres with cashew and another 15 acres with personal cultivation. The applicant admitted his lack of personal knowledge about the nature of the property prior to his purchase, which according to the Tribunal was not a valid ground to disallow his claim. He had specifically asserted that after the purchase, he had been cultivating the said property. PW2 testified that he knew the property for more than 20 years and the predecessor-in-interest had cut and removed the trees in the scheduled property to cultivate ground nuts, which cultivation was continued by the applicant also. The Commissioner's report noticed the private properties lying on the boundaries of the scheduled land which are cultivated. It was opined by the Commissioner that, on field inspection, the scheduled lands were perceived to be agricultural land lying contiguous with other agricultural lands. The scheduled property was also found to be fit for cultivation of groundnuts which was cultivated in the neighbouring properties. The evidence of RW1, Range Officer, Walayar, was found to be not substantiating the contention of the State, especially since the witness had acquaintance with the property only from 5.10.2017. There was also no objection filed to the Commissioner's report. The learned Tribunal relied on Kumari Verma and Kunhiraman P.V. v. Custodian of vested forest 2014 (4) KLT 740 to find that the order of the Forest Tribunal under the Vesting Act was pursued by t