Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. According to the learned Senior Counsel Sri.P.Raveendran who appears for the appellants, the Forest Tribunal has in Annexure A1 order found that, the property in question was not a private forest, as defined under the Vesting and Assignment Act. In view of the above finding, that has become final and binding inter parties with the dismissal of M.F.A.No.338/2003, it is not open to the respondents to contend that, the property of the appellants answers the definition of an Ecologically Fragile Land contained in Section 2

11. A perusal of Ext.A1 shows that, the Tribunal has considered the question as to whether the land could be described as private forest coming within the definition thereof contained in the Vesting and Assignment Act. It has been held that, the property of the appellants was not a private forest as defined under the Act. The said finding has become final and binding inter parties. Therefore, what has to be examined is whether the property that has been excluded from the provisions of the definition of private forest contained in the Vesting and Assignment Act, would come within the definition of an Ecologically Fragile Land, as defined by the EFL Act.

It is pointed out by the learned counsel that, the property in question is located in the erstwhile Malabar District and therefore, unless the land could be termed as coming within one of the exclusions enumerated from A to B, the same would be private forest. The exclusion contained in C to D are lands used for cultivation. The types of cultivation which are entitled to exemption under the said provision are specified there. However, the said contention of the learned Government Pleader cannot be accepted for the reason that, admittedly, in the present case proceedings had been initiated under the Vesting and Assignment Act. The said proceedings were the subject matter of O.A.No.412 of 1976. It has been found by the Forest Tribunal that, the land is not a private forest as defined under the Vesting and Assignment Act. The said finding has become final and binding inter parties, since M.F.A.No.338 of 2003 filed by the State was also dismissed as per Ext.A5 judgment. The property having been found not to be private forest by the said proceedings, no contention to the contrary can be advanced on behalf of the State. Therefore, the said contention is rejected.
"115. Whether Section 3(1) of the Act overrides the judgment given by Forest Tribunal, High Court and Supreme Court in the context of 1971 Act is a question to be answered. The 1971 Act was in force with effect from 10.05.1971. i.e., the vesting of ownership and possession of all private forests in the State was with effect from 10.5.1971. Private Forest is defined in Section 2(f) and Section 3(2) of the Act which exempts the land comprised in private forests held by an owner under his personal cultivation and is within the ceiling limit applicable with effect from 10.5.1971. When vesting of private forests took place on 10.5.1971 by virtue of operation of law, the judgments of Forest Tribunal, High Court and Supreme Court obviously determined the issue of vesting of private forests as on 10.05.1971. The 2003 Act has been enforced with effect from 02.06.2000 and vesting of Ecologically Fragile Lands in the State shall be deemed to have been taken place on 02.06.2000. Thus the Ecologically Fragile Land as defined in the 2003 Act under Section 2(b) read with Section 2(c) is of a particular category of land. There cannot be any assumption that the land which had already been vested with the state has again to be vested in the State on 02.06.2000. The relevant date for vesting of Ecologically Fragile Land under Section 3 being entirely different from vesting of private forest under the 1971 Act or exemption from private forest as on 10.05.1971 are two distinct and different happenings and events. The non obstante clause in Section 3(1) is to give overriding effect to Section 3(1) despite any judgment/decree or order of Tribunal. The judgments rendered in the context of the 1971 Act were on a different operation of law and the definition of Ecologically Fragile Land being different from private forest under the 1971 Act, Section 3(1) of the 2003 Act can in no manner be faulted. The judgment and decree or order which is referred to in Section 3(1) of the 2003 Act are obviously the judgment and decree or order which were rendered prior to 02.06.2000. The 2003 Act envisaged definition on the concept i.e. Ecologically Fragile Land, and gave the overriding effect to override the judgment or order is fully covered within the valid legislation and Section 3(1) cannot be treated to be a legislation overriding the judgment rendered on the 1971 Act."