Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 90177
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sathish Ninan, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ
K.T.MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
MFA (FOREST) 118/2022
MOHANKUMAR P T, SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SRI.ARAVIND V.MATHEW
The burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish that land was principally cultivated with crops on the appointed date to avoid classification as ecologically fragile land under the Act.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 - Section 3(1) - Appeal against dismissal of application claiming land not to be EFL - Applicants failed to prove that disputed land was principally cultivated with cardamom on the appointed date - Automatic vesting of ecologically fragile lands with the Government - Burden of proof lies on the claimant. (Paras 6, 12)
(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - Claimants must show substantial cultivation of crops on the appointed date to exempt land from being classified as EFL - Lack of credible evidence to support claims of cultivation. (Paras 6, 10)
(C) Procedural Compliance - Non-compliance with Sections 6 & 7 of the Act - Failure to comply does not affect the automatic vesting of land. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The applicants claimed ownership of 3.3589 Hectares of land, asserting it was cultivated with cardamom. The Forest Department contended the land was part of an EFL and not cultivated as claimed.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found no credible evidence supporting the applicants' claims of cultivation, leading to the dismissal of their application.
Issues: The main issues were whether the disputed land was forest land, whether it was cultivated with cardamom on the appointed date, and the correctness of the Tribunal's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish that the land was principally cultivated with cardamom on the appointed date, and automatic vesting of EFL occurs under the Act.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J
This appeal is filed by the applicants, challenging the order dated 07.01.2022 in O.A.No.6/2017 passed by the Tribunal for EFL cases, Kozhikode, dismissing their application filed under Section 10 of Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').
2. The averments in the application in brief are as follows:
The disputed land of 3.3589 Hectares (8.30 Acres) belong to the applicants as per document No.663/1972 of Vythiri SRO and document numbers 45/2010 and 46/2010 of Thamarassery SRO. It forms part of 25.84 acres of land which originally belonged to the the 1st applicant and her two sons K.T Abraham and K.T Jacob and which were planted with cardamom. The disputed land is predominantly cultivated with cardamom plants. Most of the applicants are residing in far away places and they were attending the agricultural and maintenance works by travelling long distances and also with the help of workers and friends, residing near the disputed area. Recently, when the applicants went to their property on 15.04.2017 for doing agricultural works, the Forest Officers came to the spot and prevented them from entering into property by saying that the land in dispute is an EFL, vested in Government. The land in dispute is not an EFL and is a cardamom plantation planted with cardamom very long before the appointed date. The land is surrounded by the cardamom plantations and there is no contiguous forest land on any of its boundaries. The disputed land of 8.30 Acres is used principally for cultivation of cardamom. Hence, this petition.
3. The respondents filed a written statement, the gist of which is as follows:
An extent of 100 Hectares of land in Re-Survey Nos.1186 pt, 1187 pt, 1188 pt in Vellarimala Village, Vythiri Taluk vested with the Government as EFL under Section 3 (1) of the Ordinance of 2000 and the disputed area is a part of the above EFL, which is comprised in RS.No.1187 pt. The claim of the applicants that the disputed land is predominantly covered with cardamom plants is not correct and all the boundaries of the disputed land are covered by EFL. The documents produced by the applicants cannot be considered for deciding the status of the land and only the actual field situation can decide whether the land is an EFL or not. The disputed land was never brought under any cultivation as on the appointed date and by virtue of (1), the title, right and interest over the property vested with the State, as on 2/6/2000. The Forest Department has not intervened in any plantation activities in the scheduled property at any point of time. The disputed land was not cultivated for long years and there were no developments or improvements as on 2/6/2000. The contention of the applicants that they were attending agricultural works with the help of workers and friends is totally false. The disputed land has developed into a dense forest through a series of plant succession over a period of long years. The land is a dense forest pre-dominantly supporting natural vegetation and its boundaries are lying contiguous to a large extent of forest and it has vested with the Government on the notified date.
4. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1, RW1 and CW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A20, B1 to B8 and C1 to C7. The Tribunal has, after hearing both sides and appreciating the materials on record, dismissed the petition.
5. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are:
i) Whether the disputed land is a forest or part of forest land encircled or lying contiguous to forest land owned by the Government?
ii) Whether the disputed land was principally cultivated with cardamom on the appointed date?
iii) Whether the disputed land is an EFL?
iv) Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is correct and whether the same requires any interference?
v) Reliefs and costs.
6. While considering the afore points,it would be apt to kee
