Sameer Mottemmal vs Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Kerala

N.Nagaresh, J

The petitioners, who hold pieces of land in Chundale Village of Vythiri Taluk, have approached this Court seeking to permit the petitioners to do the periodical treatment/maintenance necessary for the agricultural crops in the properties belonging to the petitioners which are the subject matter of Ext.P1 judgment and take yield from them, pending disposal of Section 10(A) applications of the petitioners.

The petitioners hold pieces of land at Mele Poonchola in Chundale Village of Vythiri Taluk. The lands were notified as Ecologically Fragile Land (EFL) under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of the Ecologically Fragile Land) Act, 2003 as per a notification dated 26.10.2013. The petitioners submitted Section 10(A) applications under the Act, 2003 for dispute redressal in respect of land having an extent of not more than 2 Hectares, before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. The applications submitted by the petitioners were rejected as time barred.

Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioners approached this Court filing WP(C) No.17930/2015 and connected cases. By a common judgment dated 20.03.2020 in WP(C) No.17930/2015 and connected cases, the learned Single Judge of this Court ordered to reconsider Section 10(A) applications submitted by the petitioners. The State filed Writ Appeal No.834 of 2020 and connected appeals. The said appeals were dismissed.

The petitioners state that in Ext.P1 judgment in W.A. No.834 of 2020 and connected appeals, a Division Bench of this Court held that the order of status quo granted by the learned Single Judge for consideration and disposal of the interim arrangement would stand extended by a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, enabling the authority concerned to make appropriate interim arrangement till the disposal of the applications.

The petitioners would submit that in spite of the direction given by the Division Bench of this Court, the 1st respondent-Principal Chief Conservator of Forests is keeping quiet in the matter and the petitioners are prevented from carrying out periodical treatment/maintenance of their property. The petitioners urged that their lands are pucca agricultural lands planted with coffee, cardamom and fruits. Unless the land is appropriately maintained, the plantations will be destroyed and the petitioners will be put to untold hardship and loss.

The 2nd respondent resisted the writ petition filing a Statement. The 2nd respondent contended that Section 10(A) applications of the petitioners are under consideration by the EFL Claim and Dispute Redressal Committee. The Committee has to inspect the land for submitting its report. The Committee, after inspection, will determine the nature of the land as on 02.06.2000 which is the appointed date on which the absolute ownership and possession of the disputed land vested in the Government as EFL. Allowing any kind of agricultural improvements at this stage will make it difficult for EFL CDRC to finalise the EFL nature of the land. The 2nd respondent would insist that a fresh sale of the back documents of the land of the petitioners would show that the cardamom plants in the land were destroyed prior to the appointed day and as on 02.06.2000, the land is not under any cultivation.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader (Forests) for respondents 1 to 6.

The area where the land of the petitioners situates was declared as EFL by a notification dated 26.10.2013 issued under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Land) Act, 2003. The notification was published in Gazette dated 03.12.2013. According to the petitioners, they were carrying out agricultural operations in the land. The petitioners are entitled to get their land excluded from the purview of EFL.

A perusal of Ext.P1 judgment would show that the rejection of Section 10(A) applications submitted by the petitioners was found fault with by a learned Single Judge of this Court and the said finding was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P1 judgment. As is evident from the interim orders at Exts.P2 to P5, during the pendency of the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, this Court granted interim orders in favour of the petitioners to do periodical treatment/maintenance necessary for the agricultural crops in the properties belonging to the petitioners.

While confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge and disposing of the writ appeals, the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:

In the light of the above discussion and decisions, we have to hesitation to hold that the appellants have not made out a case for interference with the judgment of the learned single judge, since there is no error in exercising the discretion or other legal infirmities, established by the appellants, justifying us to do so. Appeals fail and accordingly, they are dismissed. However, the order of status quo granted by the learned single Judge for consideration and disposal of the interim arrangement would stand extended by a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, enabling the authority concerned to make appropriate interim arrangement till the disposal of the applications.

Therefore, there is a clear direction by this Court that the authority concerned shall make appropriate interim arrangement till disposal of Section 10(A) applications of the petitioners.

The grievance of the petitioners is that the authorities have not taken a final decision on the applications submitted by the petitioners and at the same time, the petitioners are not permitted to carry out maintenance of their lands for protecting their agriculture, by way of an interim measure, as directed by this Court. Perusing Ext.P1 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, I find that taking into consideration the facts of the case, and the interim orders passed by the Single Judge permitting the petitioners to maintain the land, the Division Bench directed the authority concerned to make appropriate interim arrangement till the disposal of the applications. No such interim arrangement has been made despite the direction given by this Court. Failure of the authorities to pass orders on such arrangements is likely to cause irreparable damage to the agricultural operations of the petitioners.

In the circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the competent among respondents 1 to 3 to pass appropriate orders with regard to the interim arrangement to be made till the disposal of Section 10(A) applications, as directed by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment, within a period of three weeks. It is made clear that if the competent authority fails to pass orders with regard to interim arrangement as directed by the Division Bench of this Court within a period of three weeks, the petitioners will be entitled to carry out such periodical treatment/maintenance of their property, till a final order is passed in their applications.