Kerala High Court
Krishnan vs State Of Kerala on 26 August, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
MFA (FOREST) Nos.11/2025, 12/2025
1
2025:KER:64744
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 4TH BHADRA, 1947
MFA (FOREST) NO. 11 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2021 IN IA 2/2020 IN OA NO.7 OF
2020 OF FOREST (VESTING AND MANAGEMENT OF ECOLOGICALLY FRAGILE
LANDS) TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD
APPELLANT/:
KRISHNAN
AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. KARUMATHIL
PULLARA KAMALAKSHI AMMA,
SREE NARAYANA VILASAM, ARUVAKKODE, NILAMBUR,
MALAPPURM - 679329.
BY ADV SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
2 THE CHIEF CUSTODIAN
THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, FORESTS
HEAD QUARTERS, VAZUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001.
BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
GOVT. PLEADER SRI.ARAVIND V. MATHEW
THIS MFA (FOREST) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 23.08.2025,
ALONG WITH MFA (FOREST).12/2025, THE COURT ON 26.08.2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
MFA (FOREST) Nos.11/2025, 12/2025
2
2025:KER:64744
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 4TH BHADRA, 1947
MFA (FOREST) NO. 12 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2021 IN IA 2/2020 IN OA NO.6 OF
2020 OF FOREST (VESTING AND MANAGEMENT OF ECOLOGICALLY FRAGILE
LANDS) TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD
APPELLANT/S:
OMANA
AGED 63 YEARS
D/O. ELLATH KUNHIKAVU AMMA, SREENARAYANA VILASAM,
ARUVAKKODE, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM - 679330.
BY ADV SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
2 THE CHIEF CUSTODIAN
THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, FORESTS
HEAD QUARTERS, VAZUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001.
BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
GOVT. PLEADER SRI.ARAVIND V. MATHEW
THIS MFA (FOREST) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 23.08.2025,
ALONG WITH MFA (FOREST).11/2025, THE COURT ON 26.08.2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
MFA (FOREST) Nos.11/2025, 12/2025
3
2025:KER:64744
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.F.A.(Forest)No.11 & 12 OF 2025
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 26th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
The appellants approached the Kerala Forest (Vesting
and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Tribunal,
Palakkad under Section 10 of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and
Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (EFL Act),
after a period of more than 12 years from the date of
notification (4454 days), seeking a declaration that the
properties described in the respective applications are not
ecologically fragile lands. The appellants contended that they
were abroad during the relevant period and hence were not in a
position to challenge the order at the right time. The
Tribunal dismissed the application for condoning the delay on
the finding that the appellants did not adduce any evidence
MFA (FOREST) Nos.11/2025, 12/2025
2025:KER:64744
explaining the cause of delay. The said order is impugned in
this appeal.
2. We have heard Sri. L. Rajesh Narayan Iyer, the
learned counsel appearing for the appellants, and Sri. Nagaraj
Narayanan, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing
for the respondents.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellants that, if an opportunity is given to them to explain
the circumstances in which the delay occurred, they can
establish that during most of the relevant period they were
abroad, though they visited their hometown occasionally. The
learned counsel further submitted that the appellants are
ready to pay costs if the appeals are allowed on terms.
4. Apart from noting that the appellants failed to
adduce any evidence explaining the cause of delay, the
Tribunal also observed that the appellants had approached the
Custodian by filing an application under Section 10A of the
EFL Act read with Rule 21A(1) of the EFL Rules. The above
observation was made based on Ext.B1 document produced by the
MFA (FOREST) Nos.11/2025, 12/2025
2025:KER:64744
respondents. However, we note that in spite of producing
Ext.B1, the respondents did not produce the copy of the order,
if any, passed on such application. It is thus submitted by
the learned counsel for the appellants that the original
applications were filed challenging the notification and not
any orders passed by the Custodian, and therefore there is no
question of delay in filing the said applications, in view of
the law laid down in Thresiamma Varghese and Ors. v. State of
Kerala [2018 (1) KHC 327].
5. We are not persuaded to uphold the above contention
in its entirety, for the reason that, following the law laid
down by the Apex Court in several other cases, this Court in
Thresiamma Varghese (supra) itself held that even if the
Limitation Act is not applicable to a proceeding initiated
under Section 10 of the EFL Act, the parties are bound to
approach the court within a reasonable time. At the same time,
considering the fervent plea made by the learned counsel for
the appellants, we are of the view that the appellants can be
given a chance to explain the circumstances in which they were
constrained to approach the Tribunal after such a long period.
MFA (FOREST) Nos.11/2025, 12/2025
2025:KER:64744
This can be done only on terms, as the appellants could have
adduced such evidence at the first instance itself.
In the result, the appeals are allowed by setting aside the
impugned order, on condition that the respective appellants
shall deposit Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each at
the Kerala High Court Arbitration Centre, as costs, within a
period of thirty days from today. It is made clear that the
respondents are at liberty to produce before the Tribunal the
order, if any, passed by the Custodian on Ext.B1 application.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
sv
