1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S).  2934 OF 2011 L. RADHAKRISHNAN                             Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS PARAKULANGARA DEVASWOM & ANR.                Respondent(s)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2964 OF 2011

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. Civil Appeal No. 2964 of 2011 is filed against the Judgment dated 23.06.2006 passed in Writ Appeal No. 457 of 2000 and Civil Appeal No. 2934 of 2011 is filed against the order dated 17.10.2007 passed in Contempt  Case  (C)  No.  1195  of  2007.   The  issue pertains to the claim made by the respondents that they are entitled to restoration of their land, which was declined by the State as an ecologically fragile land.

2. The short Judgment in the writ appeal did not go into  any  disputed  contentions  but  merely  made  an observation  that  the  Judgment  impugned  before  the Division Bench for restoration of the land would be

2

given effect to, subject to the right of the State that may be available to it under the provisions of The  Kerala  Forest  (Vesting  and  Management  of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (in short, “the Act”).  Whereas in the order dated 17.10.2007, the Division Bench entered a categorical finding that in having declined to restore the land, the appellants have committed contempt of court and hence, decided to frame charge accordingly.  It was at that stage Civil Appeal No. 2934 of 2011 was filed.

3. We  have  heard  Mr.  Pallav  Shishodia,  learned senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellants,  and Dr.Mathew Kuzhalnadan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. In the nature of the order we propose to pass, we do not think it necessary to go into the background of  the  entire  litigation.  Section  10  of  the  Act provides  for  a  machinery  for  settlement  of  the disputes.  The provision reads as follows :-

“10.  Settlement  of  disputes  by  the Tribunal.- (1) Where any dispute arises as to whether,-

(a)any  land  is  an  ecologically  fragile land or not; or

(b)any  ecologically  fragile  land  or

3

portion  thereof  has  vested  in  the Government or not; or (c)the  compensation  determined  under section  8  is  insufficient  or  not,  the person who claims that the land is not an ecologically  fragile  and  or  that  the ecologically fragile land has not vested in  the  Government,  or  that  the compensation  is  not  sufficient,  may, within  five  years  from  the  date  of commencement  of  this  Act  or  within  six months from the date of the notification under  sub-section  (1)  of  section  4 declaring the land to be an ecologically fragile land or the date of communication of compensation under section 8, as the case may be, or within such time as the Government  may  notify  in  this  behalf, apply to the Tribunal for settlement of the dispute.

(2) An application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed.

(3) If the Tribunal decides that any land is  not  an  ecologically  fragile  land  or that  an  ecologically  fragile  land  or portion  thereof  has  not  vested  in  the Government and,-

(a)no  appeal  under  section  11  has  been preferred  against  the  decision  of  the Tribunal  within  the  period  specified therein; or

(b)such appeal having been preferred under section 11 has been dismissed by the High Court;

the custodian shall, as soon as may be,  after  the  expiry  of  the  period referred to in clause (a) or, as the case may be, after the date of the order of the High Court dismissing the appeal, restore possession of such land or portion as the case may be, to the owner of such land.

(4)  If  the  Tribunal  decides  that  the compensation determined under section 8 is not  adequate  and  revises  the  amount  of compensation and,-

4

(a)no  appeal  under  section  11  has  been preferred  against  the  decision  of  the Tribunal  within  the  period  specified therein; or

(b)such appeal having been preferred under section 11 has been dismissed by the High Court;

the custodian shall, as soon as may be,  after  the  expiry  of  the  period referred to in clause (a) or, as the case may be, after the date of the order of the High Court dismissing the appeal, pay such compensation to the owner of such land.”

5. Going by the Judgment of the Division Bench in the  writ  appeal,  the  Court  was  conscious  of  the right,  if  any,  available  to  the  State  to  proceed against the disputed land under the Act.  Having thus taken steps under the Act, it cannot be said that the appellants have, in any way, committed any contempt. Be that as it may, since the crucial question to be decided  is  whether  the  disputed  land  is  an ecologically fragile land, the jurisdiction is wholly vested in the Tribunal constituted under Section 9 of the Act.  Therefore, while setting aside the impugned order  dated  17.10.2007  in  the  contempt  case,  we dispose  of  these  appeals  with  liberty  to  the respondents to take recourse to the statutory remedy under Section 10 of the Act before the Tribunal.  In the event of such an approach being made within sixty days from today, we request the Tribunal to dispose of the same expeditiously and preferably within one

5

year.  We make it clear that we have not considered the  contentions  of  both  parties  on  merits  and, therefore, it will be open to the parties to raise all  available  contentions  before  the  Tribunal, including  the  contentions  raised  by  the  learned counsel for the respondents pertaining to the report of the Commissioner in the year 1999 and the order of the Tribunal dated 05.07.1980.   

No costs.    .......................J.

             [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ R. BANUMATHI ]  

New Delhi; November 01, 2017.

6

ITEM NO.101               COURT NO.5               SECTION XI -A                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal  No(s).  2934/2011 L. RADHAKRISHNAN                                   Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS PARAKULANGARA DEVASWOM & ANR.                    Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 2964/2011 (XI -A) Date : 01-11-2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH          HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI Counsel for the  parties Mr. Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Adv.  

Mr. G. Prakash, Adv.  Mr. Jishnu M. L., Adv.  Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Adv.  Ms. Beena Prakash, Adv.  Mr. Vijay Shankar V. L., Adv.   Dr. Mathew Kuzhalnadan, Adv.  Mr. Abir Phukan, Adv.  Mr. Pushkar Prehar, Adv.  

                   Mr. T. V. George, AOR                          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

The  appeals  are  disposed  of  in  terms  of  the  signed non-reportable Judgment.   

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA)                              (RENU DIWAN)    COURT MASTER                                ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)