Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 42206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sathish Ninan, P. Krishna Kumar, JJ
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – Appellant
Versus
RAJALAKSHMI, W/O. LATE GOPALAKRISHNAN – Respondent
MFA (Forest) No. 101 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ADV.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SPL.GP (FOREST)
For the Respondents: ADV SHRI.M.C.JOHN
The Tribunal's finding on property status is unsustainable; further evidence is required for adjudication under the EFL Act.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 - The appeal contests a Tribunal's order declaring a property not ecologically fragile under the EFL Act. Tribunal's finding challenged due to contradictions in evidence regarding property's contiguity to forest land. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Tribunal's reliance on the Commissioner's report questioned; opportunity granted for applicants to produce further evidence and amend pleadings. (Paras 5, 10)
Facts of the case:
The property in dispute is 5.80 acres and was notified under the EFL Act in 2001. The applicants claim ownership and argue the land is principally cultivated, not forested. (Paras 2-3)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's finding on property not satisfying forest criteria is unsustainable; the appeal is allowed. (Paras 8, 11)
Issues: Whether the property is contiguous to a forest and the validity of the Tribunal's reliance on the Commissioner's report. (Paras 6, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court identified contradictions in the Commissioner's report concerning the property and stated that further evidence is required for proper adjudication. (Paras 6, 10)
Result: Appeal allowed; Tribunal's order set aside, case remitted for fresh disposal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over property's use and classification under efl act. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. contradictions in evidence raised concerning property's status. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's findings on the tribunal's decision and evidence requirements. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. remittance of case for further proceedings and evidence. (Para 10 , 11) |
Sathish Ninan, J.
Order of the Forest Tribunal declaring the O.A scheduled property as not an ecologically fragile land, under the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (herein after referred to as “the EFL Act”) is under challenge by the State.
2. The application schedule property has an extent of
5.80 acres. On 12.07.2001, as per Ext.B2, the property was notified under the EFL Act. The applicants are the legal heirs of late V.K.Gopalakrishnan, the owner of the property. Ext.A4 Partition Deed dated 25.03.1970 and Ext.A2 proceedings of the Land Tribunal whereunder he purchased the 'Janmom' right over the property, establishes title.
3. The application schedule property along with the adjoining property on east, which belong to his brother, V.K. Balasubramaniam, were involved in the proceedings under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (herein after referred to as “the Vesting Act”). The original applications under the Vesting Act were allowed. The appeal against the same, by the State, as M.F.A.No.374 of 1978 was dismissed. It is thereafter that the property has been notified under the EFL Act. According to the applicant, the property is not lying contiguous to a forest; further, the property is used principally for cultivation of long duration crops and is not a forest under the EFL Act.
4. The Tribunal held that the application schedule property is not lying contiguous to forest, and that as on the relevant date, i.e., 02.06.2000, the property was not lying as forest under the EFL Act.
5. We have heard Shri.Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) on behalf of the appellants-respondents and Shri.M.C. John, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents-applicants.
6. On the question as to whether the application scheduled property lies contiguous to a forest, we notice that, at page No.1 in Ext.C1 commission report, the Advocate Commissioner has stated that the property is bounded by forest land on the north and a portion of the eastern side. However, the Commissioner at page No.2 proceeded to state that the property is not lying contiguous to a forest. Evidently, the statements are contradictory. Annexed to Ext.C1 report is a sketch, identifying the property while it was involved in the vesting proceedings. A perusal of the sketch indicates that, the northern, southern and a portion of the eastern boundaries of the application scheduled property are vested forests. The State had filed objection to the Commission report. However, the commissioner was not examined. At paragraph No.3 of the objection, it is stated that the northern and southern boundaries of the application schedule property are vested forests. At any rate, in the light of the above, the finding of the Tribunal that the application schedule property does not lie contiguous to any forest, is apparently unsustainable.
7. Coming to the nature of the property, again, the Tribunal has relied on Ext.C1 Commissioner's report. Regarding vegetation found in the property, in Ext.C1 report, it is stated thus;
“The petition schedule property does not show any special future of an EFL Land. At the time of my inspection I could see following trees of about 10-45 yrs of age. Mango, Cashew, Coconut, Tamarind, Teak, Noxromica (Kanji ram), Blackcurrant, Cotton wool tree (Volta), Bread fruit tree (Irum panna) oleaccae (Edala), East Indian Rosewood Arjun tree (Veeti), Marutha, Indian Tulip (Poovarasan). The fruit bearing trees seems to be bearing less fruit may be due to lack of care and nurturing.”
Evidently, the report does not indicate the number of trees and the
