The court upheld that property not principally covered by trees cannot be classified as forest under the EFL Act, rejecting the State's claim regarding ecologically fragile land.

1. The State is in appeal from an order of the Forest Tribunal, under the Kerala Forests (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 [for brevity, 'the EFL Act']. The applicant before the Tribunal, who is the respondent herein, was concerned with 5.56 Acres purchased by him in the year 1995. A larger extent, in which was comprised the above property, was alleged to have been vested in the Government under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act , 1971, (for brevity the Vesting Act).

2. The vendor of the applicant approached the Tribunal constituted under the Vesting Act and obtained a declaration of exemption in O.A. No. 59 of 1981 on 14/03/1984. The appeal before the High Court was also dismissed and the Division Forest Officer restored the possession of the scheduled properties to the owner on 27/04/1995. Immediately thereafter, by Ext. A1, the property was purchased by the applicant on 07/07/1995. The notification under the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Ordinance, 2000 was published on 15/05/2001, based on which the forest authorities again alleged vesting of the said land. The scheduled property, according to the Department, lies contiguous to Anthimalankadu Bit I [VFC Item No. 74] having a total extent of 250 hectares. It was argued that if any portion of the large extent is exempted, it would destroy the contiguity of the entire mallavaram [slope of a hill] and its ecosystem.

3. The Tribunal placed reliance on the commission report to find that the application schedule property is not a private forest. The respondent, though filed objection to Ext. C1, did not seek examination of the Commissioner nor produced contra evidence to upset the findings in the report. The commission report also did not indicate any natural vegetation or tree growth in the property. Reliance was also placed on the earlier exemption granted under the Vesting Act to hold that the subject land is neither a vested forest or a reserved forest. Ext. B1 notification was found to indicate the boundaries of the schedule property, on the north and east to be vested forest and on the south and west to be restored lands.

4. Sri. Nagaraj Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader (Forest), argued that the mere absence of tree growth cannot remove a land from the nomenclature of a forest. It is pointed out that the ecologically fragile lands as per the EFL Act means any forest land or portion thereof lying contiguous to or encircled by a reserved or vested forest or forest land owned by the Government and predominantly supporting natural vegetation. It is also pointed out that sub-clause (c) & (d) of S. 2 of the EFL Act defines forest and land. While 'forest' means lands principally covered with naturally grown trees and undergrowth, 'land' includes rivers, streams, its origin and other waterbodies. 'Land' is an inclusive definition and a wider connotation has to be conceded to the word, thus making it wide enough to include any type of lands. It is argued that wild life sanctuaries often are grasslands and wet swamps, which provide fodder and water to the herbivorous animals, which in turn sustains the carnivorous population of such sanctuaries. Grasslands, are the pastures for such herbivorous animals, which is a part of forest and hence mere tree growth is not the only sign of a forest land. Wooden areas, green pastures and water bodies are essential elements for survival of the wildlife, which tends to bring ecological balance; the sustenance of which is the object under the EFL Act. The Commis