Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (Act of 1971) was enacted to provide for vesting in the Government of private forests in the State of Kerala and, thereafter, for further assignment, if any. Large areas of forests were privately owned and indiscriminate felling of large numbers of trees from such private forests threatened the very existence of such forests. Moreover, such destruction of private forests resulted in the denial of and interference with the customary and prescriptive rights of the tribals and others. The private forest is defined under Section 2(f) of the Act of 1971. Section 3 of the Act of 1971 states that with effect on and from the appointed day, the ownership and possession of all private forests in the State of Kerala shall stand transferred to and vested in the Government free from all encumbrances, and the right, title and interest of the owner or any other person in any private forest shall stand extinguished. Section 4 of the Act of 1971 declares that all private forests which would vest in the Government under Section 3(1) be deemed to be Reserved Forests when they remain vested in the Government. A Tribunal is constituted under Section 7 of 2024:KER:89303 the Act of 1971. The Tribunal is empowered to decide all matters within its competence. Section 8A provides an appeal to the High Court.

5. This litigation primarily arises from the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (Act of 2003). This enactment was preceded by certain Ordinances on the subject. The Act of 2003 was enacted to provide for the vesting in the Government of ecologically fragile lands in the State of Kerala and for the management of such lands with a view to maintain ecological balance and conserve biodiversity. Section 2(a) of the Act of 2003 defines Custodian to mean the Principal Conservator of Forests. The ecologically fragile lands are defined under Section 2(b) to mean, any forest land or any portion thereof held by any person and lying contiguous to or encircled by a reserved forest of a vested forest or any other forest land owned by the Government and predominantly supporting natural vegetation, and any land declared to be an ecologically fragile land by the Government by notification in the official Gazette under Section 4. Section 2(b) of the Act of 2003 reads as under:

2024:KER:89303 Section 2(c) of the Act of 2003 defines "forest" to mean as under:

(c) "forest" means any land principally covered with naturally grown trees and undergrowth and includes any forest statutorily recognised and declared as reserved forest, protected forest or otherwise but does not include any land which is used principally for the cultivation of crops of long duration such as tea, coffee, rubber, pepper, cardamom, coconut, arecanut or cashew or any other sites of residential building and surrounding essential for the convenient use of such buildings."

2024:KER:89303

40. The learned Special Government Pleader contended that, even if the land is to be cultivated, it should be used for a principal crop where it is less than 50%. His contention is that the interpretation of Mr. Teggi, the Custodian in Exhibit-P2 order regarding Section 2(c) of the Act of 2003, which defines "forest" to include teak, is entirely incorrect. Mr. Teggi, the Custodian in Exhibit-P2 order stated that since Section 2(c) of the Act of 2003 has prefixed the words "such as," the scope of exempted crops is not restricted to rubber, teak, etc. The learned Special Government Pleader contended that exempted crops are those that can be harvested, whereas teak is not a crop that can be harvested but can only be felled. It is also contended that the inspection report has shown that some forest lands are in continuity with the vested forest, thus surrounded by the vested forest. Such an important characteristic, placed on record through the report of the Committee, could not have been ignored by Mr. Teggi, the Custodian, who is supposed to have domain expertise on the subject. It is also contended that the Forest Tribunal in Exhibit-P1 order dated 28 April 1982 found that the lands involved in the original applications were private forest, but it was exempted because the Petitioners had proven that they intended to cultivate the property under Section 3 of the Private Forests Act, 1971. The learned Special Government Pleader also pointed out that the case presented by the Petitioners is dishonest, as they claimed that the property was being cultivated for the purpose of growing tapioca while seeking exemption under the Act of 1961 before the Tribunal.