Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 42661
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.ASHA, J
V C ASHRAF – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA Advocate - GOVERNMENT PLEADER, GOVERNMENT PLEADER,SRI SANDESH RAJA K SPL G P FOREST – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 33172/2014
The EFL Act automatically vests ecologically fragile lands in the government without the need for prior notification, establishing a framework for dispute resolution by the Forest Tribunal.
Headnote:
EFL - Ownership Dispute - Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 - Sections 2(b)(i), 3, 4, 10 - The court upheld the automatic vesting of ecologically fragile lands to the government upon the commencement of the EFL Act, confirming that no further notification was needed, and outlining the path for disputes to be settled by the Forest Tribunal.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners claimed ownership of garden land based on partition and assignment deeds, challenging a proposal for notification of their land as ecologically fragile under the EFL Act, arguing the authority lay with the Advisory Committee.
Issues: Whether the Divisional Forest Officer had the authority to propose notification of lands as ecologically fragile and the implications of automatic vesting of said lands under the EFL Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Act stipulates automatic vesting of ecologically fragile lands in the government upon commencement, thus the Divisional Forest Officer's proposal was appropriate, and the adjudication of ownership disputes should be handled by the Forest Tribunal per the EFL Act.
Final Decision: Writ petitions dismissed, with liberty to approach the Forest Tribunal for any disputes.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33172/2014, claims that he is the owner of 28 cents of garden land in Re.Sy.No.200/35 in Block No.25 in Kunnathidavaka Village, Vythiri Taluk, Wayanad by virtue of a partition deed of 2002. The petitioner in W.P(C) No.34672/2014, claims joint ownership over 0.5400 Hectares of garden land in Re.Sy.No.200/12 and 0.2010 Hectares of garden land in Re.Sy.No.200/10 in Block No.25 of the same village, by virtue of assignment deeds of 2012. 2. In both these writ petitions, they challenge a letter of the Divisional Forest Officer addressed to the Chief Conservator of Forests on 13.04.2012 proposing notification of certain land, including the land claimed to be in the ownership of the petitioners, as ecologically fragile land, considering its high ecological value, the predominant vegetation in it, etc. This letter is from Sri.P.Dhanesh Kumar, Divisional Forest Officer, addressed to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Office of Northern circle, Kannur, explaining the vegetation in the land in detail, its nature and lie, the ingredients found in it which satisfy the definition of ecologically fragile land under Section 2 (b)(i) of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as'EFL Act').
3. The petitioners are challenging Ext.P3 letter on the ground that the Divisional Forest Officer does not have any authority to place such a recommendation before the Chief Conservator of Forests. It is their contention that it is only the Advisory Committee, which is the authority competent to make such proposal, under provisions of the EFL Act, that too after observing the procedure prescribed therein.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the properties in the ownership of the petitioners are not notified under the EFL Act and therefore EFL Act does not apply to it. According to them Section 3 of the Act envisages notification of those lands before it can be said to have been vested in Government. It is also their contention that such notification has to be done only if the Advisory Committee constituted under Section 15, places the recommendations before the Government, after identification of such land and then only it can be notified and the land can be said to have come under the purview of the Act, only thereafter.
5. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit, explaining the object, purpose, etc of the Act as well as the provisions contained in the Act. They have also explained the requisite ingredients which make the disputed lands as EFL. It is stated that no separate notification was necessary for application of the EFL land, as all those land which comes under the definition of EFL gets vested in Government by operation of the Act, on its commencement, by virtue of Section 3 thereof.
6. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the EFL has statutorily vested in Government on the commencement of the Act; the lands claimed to be owned by petitioners satisfy all the ingredients of EFL as defined in Section under 2(b)(i) of the Act. The EFL under Section 3(1) of the Act, gets automatically vested in Government. Government can declare other land as EFL as provided in Section 4 of the Act. It was pointed out that the Advisory Committee is constituted under Section 15, for identification of land and recommendation to Government for declaration of those land as EFL by notification under of the Act. It is also stated that the provisions contained in Sub Section 3 of provides for identification of the land by the Advisory Committee whereas the matters to be considered for such identification are provided in Sub . The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests is one of the members of the Advisory Committee.
7. I have heard contentions raised on either side.
8. The constitutional validity of the Act is already upheld by this Court in the judgment in Planters Forum a Private Trust, Calicut V State of Keral
