The property in question did not meet the statutory definition of ecologically fragile land under the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003.

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

This appeal by the State of Kerala is directed against the order passed by the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Tribunal, Palakkad, in O.A. No.2 of 2011, whereby the Tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondent and declared that the application-

scheduled property is not an ecologically fragile land.

2. The material facts, in brief, are as follows: The jenmam right over the application-scheduled property, having an extent of 3.65 acres in Re-survey No.63/3/3 of Parli I Village, originally belonged to Mankata Kovilakam. Under partition deed No.824/1954 and a subsequent Will deed No.7/57 registered at S.R.O., Chittur, the property devolved upon Ramachandranunni Mannadiyar and Sumangala Cheriyamma. They later assigned the property to one Krishnankutty as per Ext.A4 sale deed, from whom the respondent purchased the property in the year 2006 under Ext.A1.

3. Earlier, Ramachandranunni Mannadiyar had approached the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad, by filing O.A. No.303 of 1974, seeking exemption of the property from the purview of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 . The Tribunal allowed the said application, and the order attained finality upon dismissal of the appeal preferred by the State.

4. After the coming into force of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the area including the land in question was notified under the Act. Thereupon, the respondent approached the Tribunal contending that the property does not satisfy the definition of “ecologically fragile land”, as it is neither principally covered with naturally grown trees nor contiguous to any forest. According to the respondent, the land contains several fruit-bearing trees and as many as 14 buildings.

5. For the purpose of determining the nature of the land, the Tribunal appointed an Advocate Commissioner, who submitted Ext.C1 report. The Commissioner reported the presence of 20 mango trees, 4 teak trees, 10 arecanut trees, 15 cashew nut trees, 3 guava trees, 7 coconut trees, and several ornamental plants, all stated to be more than 15 years old. The report also noted the existence of several buildings bearing door numbers assigned by the local authority.

6. During the trial, PW1 and RW1 were examined, and Exts.A1 to A9, Ext.B1, and Ext.C1 were marked. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal found that the predecessors-in-interest of the respondent had been in continuous possession of the property for several decades and that the land, being occupied by fruit-bearing trees and structures, cannot be treated as an ecologically fragile land.

Accordingly, the application was allowed.

7. We have heard Sri. Nagaraj Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader (Forests) appearing for the appellant, and Sri. Jacob Sebastian, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

8. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the application-scheduled property answers the description of “ecologically fragile land” under Section 2 (b) (i) of the Act as on 02.06.2000, the date of commencement of the Act.

9. Section 2 (b) of the Act defines “ecologically fragile lands” as follows:

“(b) ‘ecologically fragile lands’ means—

(i) any forest land or any portion thereof held by any person and lying contiguous or encircled by a reserved forest or a vested forest or any other forest land owned by the Government and predominantly supporting natural vegetation; and (ii) any land declared to be an ecologically fragile land by the Government by notification in the official Gazette under Section 4.”

Admittedly this is not a case where Section 2 (b)(ii) of