The court held that appellants could explain delays in challenging ecological land designations upon providing adequate evidence and conditions set for costs.

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

The appellants approached the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Tribunal, Palakkad under Section 10 of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (EFL Act), after a period of more than 12 years from the date of notification (4454 days), seeking a declaration that the properties described in the respective applications are not ecologically fragile lands. The appellants contended that they were abroad during the relevant period and hence were not in a position to challenge the order at the right time. The Tribunal dismissed the application for condoning the delay on the finding that the appellants did not adduce any evidence explaining the cause of delay. The said order is impugned in this appeal.

2. We have heard Sri. L. Rajesh Narayan Iyer, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, and Sri. Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that, if an opportunity is given to them to explain the circumstances in which the delay occurred, they can establish that during most of the relevant period they were abroad, though they visited their hometown occasionally. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellants are ready to pay costs if the appeals are allowed on terms. 4. Apart from noting that the appellants failed to adduce any evidence explaining the cause of delay, the Tribunal also observed that the appellants had approached the Custodian by filing an application under Section 10A of the EFL Act read with Rule 21A(1) of the EFL Rules. The above observation was made based on Ext.B1 document produced by the respondents. However, we note that in spite of producing Ext.B1, the respondents did not produce the copy of the order, if any, passed on such application. It is thus submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the original applications were filed challenging the notification and not any orders passed by the Custodian, and therefore there is no question of delay in filing the said applications, in view of the law laid down in Thresiamma Varghese and Ors. v. State of Kerala [2018 (1) KHC 327] .

5. We are not persuaded to uphold the above contention in its entirety, for the reason that, following the law laid down by the Apex Court in several other cases, this Court in Thresiamma Varghese (supra) itself held that even if the Limitation Act is not applicable to a proceeding initiated under Section 10 of the EFL Act, the parties are bound to approach the court within a reasonable time. At the same time, considering the fervent plea made by the learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the view that the appellants can be given a chance to explain the circumstances in which they were constrained to approach the Tribunal after such a long period.

This can be done only on terms, as the appellants could have adduced such evidence at the first instance itself.

In the result, the appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned order, on condition that the respective appellants shall deposit Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each at the Kerala High Court Arbitration Centre, as costs, within a period of thirty days from today. It is made clear that the respondents are at liberty to produce before the Tribunal the order, if any, passed by the Custodian on Ext.B1 application.