Court emphasizes the strict adherence to tribunal restrictions when allowing road repairs under the EFL Act.

Sathish Ninan, J.

In these original petitions, the State challenges the interim orders passed by the Forest Tribunal in the Original Applications under the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (EFL Act), permitting the respective applicants to repair the existing road leading to the application schedule properties.

2. The respective respondents herein are the petitioners in the respective Original Applications before the Forest Tribunal, claiming exemption from vesting under the EFL Act. Pending the Original Applications, on the interlocutory applications filed by the respective applicants, the Tribunal passed orders, the operative portion which are verbatim in all these matters, reads thus;

“In the result, all these applications are allowed and the petitioners are permitted to repair the existing road which is being used as ingress and egress to the petition schedule properties under the supervision of Advocate Commissioner already appointed. They should give advance notice to the respondents before carrying out the work so as to enable them to be present at the time of the work. The petitioners are further directed not to make any concrete work or like work in permanent nature which would alter the physical features of the property……..”

3. We have heard Shri.Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) on behalf of the State and Shri.E. Narayanan, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents.

4. The present impugned orders have been passed by the Tribunal permitting the respective applicants to repair the existing road leading to the application schedule properties. The Tribunal had earlier permitted the respective applicants to conduct the agricultural operations in the application schedule properties in the manner as indicated therein. The directions in the said orders, insofar as it related to the permission granted for removing of undergrowth has been kept in abeyance by this Court as per the judgment passed today in O.P.(FT) No.19 of 2024 and connected matters.

5. To seek for permission to repair the road, the claim of the respective applicants was that, because of the bad road conditions workers are finding it difficult to take manures to the properties and to transport yields.

6. In the judgment in O.P.(FT) Nos.19 of 2024 and connected matters, this Court has kept in abeyance only that part of the order of the Tribunal permitting removal of undergrowth. The remaining part of the order permitting collection of yields has not been interfered with. To facilitate the same, the respective applicants could be permitted to make necessary repairs to the existing road but, strictly complying with the restrictions imposed by the Tribunal in the order.

7. The learned Special Government Pleader points out that, taking of the advantage of the order permitting repair of the road, the applicants were attempting to use machinery like JCB and Hitachi. It is admitted that, the Tribunal has, as per the order dated 16.12.2024, clarified that such machinery cannot be used.

8. All that the Tribunal has permitted is, to do the very necessary acts to repair the existing road. While we are refraining from interfering with the impugned orders, we clarify that all the restrictions as imposed by the Tribunal in the impugned and subsequent orders shall be strictly adhered to by the respective applicants.