The definitions of 'forest' and 'ecologically fragile lands' under the EFL Act were clarified, establishing that properties with natural vegetation can be classified as such.

Sathish Ninan, J. Challenging the order of the Forest Tribunal declaring the application schedule property as not ecologically fragile land, the State is in appeal.

2. The O.A. schedule property has a total extent of 10.80 acres, described in three items therein. In the year 1977, the property was notified as vested forest under the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Vesting Act”).

3. The applicant is the wife of late Subramanya Iyer. The application schedule property belonged to him as per Ext.A5 assignment deed of the year 1968. The notification was challenged before the Forest Tribunal in OA 170/1980. As per order dated 04.12.1982, the O.A.

was allowed. It was held that the property did not vest with the Government since the applicant is entitled for exclusion under Section 3(3) of the Vesting Act it being intended for cultivation. The State challenged the same before this Court in MFA 24/1984. This Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the matter back for fresh disposal. Thereafter, as per order dated

09.05.1995, The Tribunal again allowed the original application.

4. Thereafter, on 17.12.2009, the State issued notification under Section 3 of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the EFL Act”).

The notification was published in the Gazette on 05.01.2010. This original application was filed on 04.04.2011 seeking a declaration that the property is not an ecologically fragile land under the EFL Act.

5. The Tribunal held that the property in question is not a “forest” as defined under the EFL Act and consequently not an ecologically fragile land under the EFL Act. Accordingly the original application was allowed.

6. We have heard Sri.Nagaraj Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants and Sri.M.P.Madhavankutty on behalf of the respondent.

7. The points that arises for determination in this appeal are :-

(i) Is the finding of the Tribunal that the property in question is not a “forest” as defined under the EFL Act, correct ?

(ii) Does the property in question satisfy the definition of “ecological fragile land” under the EFL Act?”

8. “Forest” as defined under Section 2 (c) of the EFL Act reads thus:-

“(c) “forest” means any land principally covered with naturally grown trees and undergrowth and includes any forest statutorily recognised and declared as reserved forest, protected forest or otherwise but does not include any land which is used principally for the cultivation of crops of long duration such as tea, coffee, rubber, pepper, cardamom, coconut, arecanut or cashew or any other sites of residential building and surroundings essential for the convenient use of such buildings.”

The only issue in the present case is whether the property in question is principally covered with, naturally grown trees and undergrowth. That the other parts of the Section do not apply to the case at hand, is not in dispute. The Tribunal held that, the scheduled property which has an extent of 10.80 acres contains only 87 trees, and hence it cannot be held to be a “land principally covered with naturally grown trees”, to attract the definition of forest under EFL Act.

9. Admittedly, the 87 trees found in the property are “naturally grown trees”. It is important to note that, the definition of “forest” mentions not only naturally grown trees but, “naturally grown trees and undergrowth”. So, the presence of trees along with undergrowth is sufficient to qualify as “forest” under the EFL Act.

10. Exts.C1 is the Commissioner's Report. In Ext.C1 it has been reported that the entire property is covered by shrubs and bushes. It is stated, “...the whole property was seen covered by shrubs and bushes. It was also having trees like IRUL, POOMARAM, ELAVU, MANJAPAVATTA, PALM TREE, ODUKU, TEAK, etc.”. It was reported that the age of the trees vary from eight years to thirty years. The report, after re