[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs H. Byju on 21 January, 2026
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
MFA (Forest) No.70/2022
1
2026:KER:4641
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 1ST MAGHA, 1947
MFA (FOREST) NO. 70 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2015 IN OA NO.2 OF 2011 OF
FOREST TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM G.P.O, PIN - 695001
2 CUSTODIAN OF ECOLOGICALLY FRAGILE LAND ACT AND CHIEF
CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ECO AND WILDLIFE)
THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, FOREST
HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKKAD, THYCAUD.PO,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FOREST) SRI.NAGARAJ
NARAYANAN
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:
H. BYJU, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O HAMEED
HOUSE NO. 35 , RAKATICHI GARDEN ,
GANAPATHY.PO,COIMBATORE - 6
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
SMT.ANU JACOB
SHRI.WINSTON K.V
THIS MFA (FOREST) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 16.01.2026,
THE COURT ON 21.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MFA (Forest) No.70/2022
2
2026:KER:4641
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.F.A.(Forest)No.70 OF 2022
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
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
2026:KER:4641
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.
2026:KER:4641
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
2026:KER:4641
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 the
Act is attracted. Under Section 2(b)(i), for the land to be
treated as ecologically fragile, twin conditions must be
satisfied, namely: (a) the land must be a forest land lying
contiguous to or encircled by a forest as mentioned above, and
2026:KER:4641
(b) it must be predominantly supporting natural vegetation.
Further, Section 2(c) of the Act defines "forest" to mean land
"principally covered with naturally grown trees".
9. The crucial aspect, therefore, is whether the property
satisfied the aforesaid conditions as on the cut-off date.
Ext.C1 report shows that the Commissioner, who inspected the
property on 07.01.2013, found only fruit-bearing and planted
trees in the property which are aged more than 15 years, and
several buildings. The Commissioner did not find any natural
vegetation in the land. Though the appellant filed a written
objection against the commission report, there is no specific
contention that, as on the date of commencement of the Act,
the land was principally covered with naturally grown trees
and that such fact could not be ascertained due to the lapse
of time. The Commissioner was also not examined before the
Court to challenge his findings.
10. It also remains undisputed that the property has been
under the occupation of private individuals since at least
1954, and that it had earlier been exempted from vesting under
2026:KER:4641
the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971.
We find that the Tribunal was fully justified in allowing the
application. No illegality or impropriety is discernible in
the impugned order warranting interference in appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
sv
