IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] MONDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 30TH ASWINA, 1940 WA.No. 1892 of 2018 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN [CASE NUMBER] DTD.7.12.2017 APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: 1 [ENTITY],S/O [ENTITY], THADUKKASSERY, KERALESSERY P.O., PALAKKAD. 2 [ENTITY], RESIDING AT SANTHANIVAS, VADAKKUMTHARA, PALAKKAD. 3 [ENTITY], RESIDING AT SANTHANIVAS, VADAKKUMTHARA, PALAKKAD. 4 [ENTITY] RESIDING AT SANTHANIVAS, VADAKKUMTHARA, PALAKKAD. 5 [ENTITY] RESIDING AT SANTHANIVAS, VADAKKUMTHARA, PALAKKAD. 6 [ENTITY] RESIDING AT SANTHANIVAS, VADAKKUMTHARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. [ENTITY] [ENTITY] [ENTITY] G. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 [ENTITY] REPRESENTEDBY ITS SECRETARY, FOREST AND WILD LIFE, SECRETARIAT, [ENTITY]. 2 THE [ENTITY] DISTRICT PALAKKAD. 3 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD DIST. SRI.SANDHESH [ENTITY], SPECIAL GOVT PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: [CASE NUMBER] 2 JUDGMENT
[ENTITY], C.J.
1. Heard Sri.[ENTITY], the learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners. The learned Special Government Pleader Sri.[ENTITY] is appearing for the respondents.
2. The matter pertains to lands notified as ecologically fragile lands in terms of [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as the ' [ACT]', for short). The [CASE NUMBER] was filed by the appellants claiming possession of the land on the basis of gift deed executed by their mother. They sought restoration of the land, which came to be vested upon the Government, under the [ACT] . According to the contentions raised, the land in question is exempted from vesting upon the State and the petitioners relied on the order dated 26.8.1987 of the Forest Tribunal (Ext.P4) whereby, direction was issued to the respondents to put the writ petitioners in possession of the land, on or before 26.11.1987. But the authorities took the stand that the concerned land has been notified as Economically Fragile Land and therefore they are not in a position to restore the land.
3. The writ court, after due consideration of the ratio of the judgment in [PRECEDENT] and also the [PRECEDENT], opined that the claim raised by the petitioners in respect of cultivation carried out in the property, is to be adjudicated before the statutory authority. Accordingly, the petitioners were relegated to the Forest Tribunal under the [ACT], so that their claim can be decided by the Tribunal.
4. The counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners refers to [SECTION] of the [ACT] to contend before us that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute as to whether any particular land is forest land or not and therefore, he submits that the learned single Judge should not have held that the petitioners are to agitate their claim before the Forest Tribunal.
5. Adverting to the above contention, it is seen that the [SECTION] of the [ACT] permits the Tribunal to determine whether any land is ecologically fragile land or not. The [SECTION] of the [ACT] defines the ecologically fragile land as any forest land or land lying contiguous to or encircled by a reserved forest and predominantly supporting natural vegetation. Besides, [SECTION]
(ii) takes into account any land notified by the Government as ecologically fragile land, under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
6. The above statutory definition of the ecologically fragile land clearly suggests that when the Tribunal is conferred with the jurisdiction to determine whether any land is an ecologically fragile land or not, it would necessarily have the authority to also determine whether, the land in question is a forest land or not, for the purpose of inclusion in the definition of ecologically fragile land. Thus the adjudicatory power of the Tribunal should not be read in a narrow sense to denude it of the power to effectively determine an issue coming within the purview of the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction.
7. The Forest Tribunal is notified as the competent forum under [SECTION] of the [ACT] and therefore the writ petitioners were rightly relegated to the Forest Tribunal for adjudication of the factual contentions raised by them. Hence their challenge to the impugned judgment is found devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the time granted to the writ petitioners to approach the Tribunal has already expired and therefore we direct that if they file their applications within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same should be considered by the Tribunal on merits and the applications should not be dismissed on the ground of delay or limitation. It is ordered accordingly.
[ENTITY] JUSTICE Sd/-
[ENTITY] JUDGE kkb.
/True copy/