The court reaffirmed that property deemed ecologically fragile under the Act cannot be claimed by private individuals, prioritizing environmental protection over ownership rights.

JUDGMENT

Hariprasad, J.

Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the common order passed by the Tribunal constituted under Sec.9 of the Kerala Forest (vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003, in short, “the Act of 2003”. Petitioner approached the Tribunal under Sec.10 of Act of 2003 for a declaration that the petition schedule property is not an ecologically fragile land coming under the purview of the said Act and for directing the respondents to restore possession of the same to the petitioner.

2. Material averments borne out from Ext.P16, application (I.A.No.174 of 2009 in O.A.No.15 of 2009 for temporary injunction) and Ext.P17 (I.A.No.148 of 2010 in the said Original Application seeking permission to take usufructuous from the property and to carry out maintenance) are the following:

Vengunad Swaroopam of Kollemgode owned large extent of lands in Palakkad District, including 783 acres of unsurveyed land in Muthalamada Village, Chittur Taluk which was a private forest. Sec.3(1)(a) of the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 (in short, “the MPPF Act”) prohibited the owner of a private forest from selling, leasing or otherwise alienating the whole or any portion of a private forest without the previous sanction of the District Collector. In February, 1962, the jenmy of the land sought permission from the District Collector, Palakkad under the above provision to lease out 783 acres of land to Thirumalai Swamy Gounder for cardamon and coffee plantation. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the Tribunal did not mark any document produced before it. In this proceedings, petitioner produced Ext.P1, said to be the registered lease deed dated 26.03.1962 of Sub Registrar's Office, Palakkad pertaining to the disputed property. Pursuant to the lease, it is alleged that the lessee cleared the land and planted coffee and cardamom. The estate was known as Periyachola Estate. While so, a partition suit as O.S.No.1 of 1964 was filed before the District Court, Palakkad by some members of the Swaroopam for partition of the properties, including the disputed land. In that suit, a Receiver was appointed and he took possession of the properties including the land in question. It is submitted that Thirumalai Swamy Gounder was the 12th defendant in the suit. Petitioner contended that as per Ext.P2, compromise, 12th defendant (predecessor-in-title of the petitioner) was allowed to continue as tenant of the properties subject to payment of annual rent.

3. Ext.P3 is the plan prepared by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records. Petitioner also contended that the original lessee obtained permission from the Sub Collector, Palakkad on 21.01.1976 for conversion of 300 acres of cardamom plantation to coffee plantation. The original lessee, Thirumalai Swamy Gounder, sold the property to M/s.Gemini Plantations, a partnership firm as per Ext.P4, document dated 15.07.1977. Petitioner would contend that in the schedule to the document 400 acres of land is described as coffee estate and 300 acres as land permitted for coffee plantation by converting the cardamom plantation. Rest of the properties are land occupied by buildings, roads, etc. Ext.P5 is the certificate of registration issued by the Tahsildar and Registering Officer, Chittur describing M/s.Gemini Plantations as the registered owner of the coffee estate mentioned in the schedule to Ext.P5.

4. At various stages, cardamom plantation was converted into coffee plantation with permission of the authorities and out of 783 acres of land, 620 acres had been changed to coffee plantation. Tahsildar, Chittur who is the Registering Officer of the coffee and cardamom plantations has physically inspected the entire area of plantation and satisfied himself that 620 acres of land was planted with coffee and as per Ext.P6, order petitioner was directed to plant 80 acres more with coffee. It is also the contention of th