The burden of proof under the E.F.L Act rests on the applicant to demonstrate that the disputed property is not ecologically fragile, which was not satisfactorily done.

J U D G M E N T

Jayachandran, J The non suited applicant in O.A.No.2/2010 preferred under Section 10(1) of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 ['E.F.L Act', for short] before the Tribunal for E.F.L cases, Kozhikode is the appellant. The impugned judgment dated 27.06.2012 dismissed the O.A. finding that the applicant failed to prove by satisfactory evidence that the scheduled property is not an ecologically fragile land.

2. Facts The scheduled property has an extent of 15 acres comprised in resurvey no.509 of Thondernad Village, Wayanad, of which the applicant is the absolute owner. The scheduled property is not an ecologically fragile land as defined in the E.F.L Act and the same is planted with coffee, pepper, areca etc, long before 02.06.2000, the date on which the E.F.L Act came into force. The scheduled property originally belonged to P.P.Yasodara and P.K.Raveendran, from whom one Mehaboob, Juraid and Faisal purchased 2 acres each, vide Exts.A13 to A15 documents of the year 1995. One Aziya Umma purchased 9 acres from the said Yasodara and Raveendran as per Ext.A17 document. As per Ext.A19 document of the year 1997, the said Aziya Umma transferred her right over 2 acres, forming part of the scheduled property, to one Fathima Shah. Similarly, as per Ext.A18 document of the year 2003, Aziya Umma transferred her rights over the remaining 7 acres to one Jasmin, vide Ext.A16 document of the year 2003, Mehabood, Juraid and Faisal above-referred transferred 6 acres - forming part of the scheduled property - to one Abdul Latheef, vide Ext.A20 document of the year 2005, Fathima Shah transferred her rights over the 2 acres above-referred to Jasmin. As per Ext.A1 document of year 2007, the applicant/firm purchased the scheduled property having a total extent of 15 acres from the said Abdul Latheef and Jasmin. Besides, the original owners Raveendran and Yasodara got Ext.A2 purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal, Mananthody, which is conclusive proof of title. The property was brought under plantation with areca, coffee, pepper and other agricultural crops from 1967 onwards. The property was taken on oral lease by the father of the above said Raveendran and Yasodara. When the enjoyment of the scheduled property by the said Raveendran and Yasodara was sought to be interfered with by the Forest Department, O.A No.141/1975 was filed before the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode seeking a declaration that the scheduled property is not a private forest. The O.A was allowed, challenging which judgment, the Custodian approached this Court in M.F.A 477/1978, which also was, however, dismissed. Pursuant thereto, the said Raveendran and Yasodara filed petition before the High Court seeking restoration of the scheduled property, which was allowed as per orders in C.M.P No.12941/1982 in the M.F.A above- referred, directing restoration of possession. Accordingly, the scheduled property was restored possession of in favour of Raveendran and Yasodara. The applicants' predecessors-in-interest were enjoying the scheduled property, doing agricultural operations. After purchasing the scheduled property in the year 2007, the applicant was enjoying the same until notice under Section 3 (2) of the E.F.L Act was served. There is no tree of a forest specie or any natural vegetation in the scheduled property as on 02.06.2000. The petitioner is running a small quarry in 20 cents of land, forming part of the scheduled property. On such premise, the applicant sought for a declaration that the scheduled property is not an ecologically fragile land, which vested in the Government consequent to Ext.B1 notification.

3. The Divisional Forest Officer concerned filed written statement contending that the scheduled property has been notified as an ecologically fragile land as per Ext.B1 notification as the same was lying contiguous to forest land owned by the Government and predominantly supports natural vegetation as on 0