The court emphasized the necessity for expert assessments to adhere to specific remand requirements, particularly regarding tree age evaluations.

JUDGMENT

Sathish Ninan, J.

The application to remit the expert commissioner's report was dismissed by the Tribunal. The order is under challenge by one among the applicants in the O.A who were the petitioners in the application.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader (Forests) on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Since respondents 3 to 7 are the co-applicants along with the petitioner and sailing together, and since the order proposed is to their advantage, notice to them is dispensed with.

3. The proceedings arise under the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act , 2003. The original application was once allowed by the Tribunal. The State challenged the same before this Court in M.F.A.(Forest) No.167 of 2011. As per the judgment dated 19.12.2022, this Court set aside the judgment in the original application and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after deputing an expert Commissioner to assess the age of the trees in the property. At paragraph 9 of the judgment, this Court noticed that, going by the Commissioner's report there are number of trees of forest species, which naturally grow. It was also noticed that the Commissioner had not reported any cultivation consequent on human skill and labour. The Court further observed thus:

“9. …..... The Commissioner's report has been relied on by the Tribunal to exclude the land from the definition of ecologically fragile land, especially looking at the age of the trees as mentioned by the Commissioner. Obviously the Commissioner is not an expert to assess and assert the age of trees and we find the girth noticed by the Commissioner to be not in consonance with the age indicated; within our limited knowledge. This is however a matter to be testified on, by an expert.

10. In such circumstance we remand the matter for a fresh consideration with an expert commission being taken out which has to be done by the applicants before the Tribunal. We make it clear that there shall be no amendment of the application either with respect to the averments made or with respect to the identity. The Tribunal shall consider the issue afresh as directed herein.”

It is accordingly that the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal to issue an expert Commission.

4. The present grievance of the petitioner is that, the expert who was deputed to conduct inspection pursuant to the remand by this Court, has not made specific references to the trees which were reported in the earlier Commission report dated 31.08.2010, which report was specifically adverted to by this Court in the judgment in M.F.A.(Forest) No.167 of 2011. So also, with regard to the trees identified by the expert, he has mentioned only the scientific names and not the common names.

5. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As noticed earlier, this Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for the specific purpose of ascertaining the age of the trees noted by the Commissioner in his report dated 31.08.2010. The present report of the expert does not give any indication that such assessment of the trees noted in the Commissioner's report dated 31.08.2010 have been made and reported. This goes against the very purpose of the remand by this Court. Further, the expert had only mentioned the scientific names of the trees found in the property. He needs to mention the common names also.

In the result, the original petition is allowed. The order impugned is set aside. The Tribunal shall remit the report of the expert dated 24.04.2025 with a direction to the expert to have the age of the trees as reported in the Commissioner's report dated 31.08.2010 to be assessed and reported. The expert Commissioner shall also be required to make mention of the co