Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Later, the Government has also issued the impugned Ext.P-7 Government letter No.486/E2/2013/F&WLD dated 24.4.2013, ordering that the abovesaid 1.2 acres of land of the petitioners is a "private forest" as per the Kerala Private Forests Act, 1971, ever after the exclusion from the process of vesting as per Sec.3(3) and that, therefore, it would also satisfy the definition of "forest" as defined in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (Central Act No.69 of 1980) and that any diversion of such land for non-forestry purpose would require the prior permission of the Central Government irrespective of the ownership of the land in question, as envisaged in Sec.2 of the Central Act.

(4) Upon the expiry of this Act, the provisions of Section 8 of the Madras General Clauses Act, 1891 (Madras Act I of 1891) shall apply as if this Act had then been repealed by a Madras Act."

Sec. 2(f) of the Private Forest Act defines "private forest" as follows:

"2.Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.- 

                     xx              xxx          xxx

      "Sec.2(f) "private forest" means--

W.P.(C)30773/14                        - : 14 :-

      (1)    in relation to the Malabar District referred to in sub-section (2)
did not satisfy the definition of "private forest" as defined in the Private Forest Vesting Act, 1971 and that being so, the said land cannot be the subject matter of the prohibitory notification under Sec. 5(1) of the Trees Act. Whereas the other Division Bench rulings of this Court as in Joseph's case supra reported in 2005(4) KLT 504, Balakrishnan Nair's case supra reported in 2005 (2) KLT 485, Antony Kannattu's case reported in 2013 (3) KLT 111, are all matters, which are similar or identical to the facts in this case, wherein the properties concerned would only get the benefit of exclusion from Sec.3(1) vesting by virtue of the provisions contained in Sec.3(3) of the Act and therefore it was held that those lands would still continue to be private forest by virtue of the specific provisions contained in Sec. 3(2) or 3(3) of the Act and that those lands would certainly fulfill the definition of "private forest" as conceived of Explanation II of Sec. 5 of the Trees Act, etc. Therefore, the judgment of the Apex Court in Abdul Ali's case supra and other rulings relied on by the petitioners, are clearly distinguishable on facts and so the legal principles emanating therefrom are not applicable to the facts of this case. Whereas the matters in issue in this case are fully covered by the rulings of the Division Bench of W.P.(C)30773/14 - : 30 :-
22. Long after the passing of Ext.P-4 appellate judgment by this Court on 19.2.1998, the EFL Ordinance 2000, was brought into force on 2.6.2000. The said Ordinance was later replaced by an Act passed by the Legislature on the same subject matter. Sec.2(c) of the EFL Act, 2003, defines "forest" as follows:
"Sec.2 Definitions .-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- 
             xxx                   xxx                  xxx

W.P.(C)30773/14                                 - : 40 :-