JUDGMENT

The petitioners purchased an extent of 6.47 Hectares of landed property as per Exts.P7 and P8. In fact the said property was notified earlier under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (for short ‘Vesting Act’). The predecessor in interest of the petitioner filed O.A. No.124 of 1977 before the Kerala Forest Tribunal, Manjeri challenging the notification. Initially as per the judgment of the Tribunal dated 05.05.1978, the original application was dismissed finding that, the property claimed in the original application was a private forest and it was vested in the Government under the Vesting Act. Against the judgment, the petitioner preferred appeal before this Court as MFA No.346 of 1978. This Court remanded the matter back to the learned Tribunal for fresh disposal. After remand, the Forest Tribunal as per Ext.P6 revised order allowed the original application. As per Ext.P6 revised order, it was found that 29.10 Acres of property was not a private forest and not vested in the Government under the Vesting Act. Thereafter, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners assigned the property to the petitioners as per Exts.P7 and P8. After the petitioners acquired right over the property, the respondent notified the property again as ecologically fragile land. The petitioner challenged the same before the Kerala Forest Tribunal in O.A No. 33 of 2008. The said original application was allowed directing to remove the property from the purview of Ecologically Fragile Lands Act (for short, ‘EFL Act’). Though respondents challenged the order of the Forest Tribunal before this Court in M.F.A 23 of 2013, the appeal was also dismissed. Since the respondents did not take any action to denotify the property, they approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No. 33668 of 2018. This Court as per Ext.P2 judgment directed the respondents to effect de-notification to restore the property to the petitioners. Pursuant to the said direction, the respondents issued Ext.P3 Notification on 28.02.2023 and the property was removed from the purview of the EFL Act. Pursuant to the notification, Ext.P4 has been prepared by the respondents along with a sketch. In Ext.P4 the respondent added that trees standing in the property like eucalyptus, Masuri, Teak, Arana, Veeti, Vatta, Mango tree, Jack tree etc., shall not be cut and removed, as those trees are protected tress as per the notification issued under Section 5 of the the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act 1986. In the writ petition, the petitioners challenge Ext.P4 to the extent it incorporated the statement restricting the right of the petitioners to cut and remove the trees standing in the property.

2. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri, P.P Jacob and the learned Special Government Pleader, Sri. T.P.Sajan.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, since in Ext.P6 judgment, it was found by the Forest Tribunal that the property is not a private forest, no Notification under Section 5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act could have been issued in respect of the properties covered by Exts.P7 and P8. The learned counsel further submitted that, the entries in Ext.P4 mahazar by restricting the right of the petitioners to cut and remove the tress standing in the property are illegal and arbitrary.

4. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that, as early as in 1985, the property was notified under Section 5 of the the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, vide Annexure R2(b) notification and the challenge made by the petitioners against Annexure R2(b) was rejected as per Annexure R2(c) judgment of this Court and hence the petitioner cannot contend that Annexure R2(b) notification is bad. The learned counsel further submitted that, so far as there is no successful challenge against Annexure R2(b), the entry in Ext.P4 cannot be questioned.

5. As stated already, initially the property was notified under the Vesting