Challenge To Vested Forest Notification Filed After 14 Years Barred By Limitation: Kerala High Court

The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P Krishna Kumar delivered the judgment in a batch of appeals arising from proceedings before the Forest Tribunal relating to approximately 873 acres of land originally owned by Ponmudi Holdings Ltd.

The present appeal was filed against the orders in an original application filed under the Vesting Act and Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003(EFL Act).

The 873 acres in question which originally belonged to Ponmudi Holdings Ltd, has obtained an assignment from the Travancore Government for cultivation of cardamom, rubber, teak etc. This was later conveyed in favour of one K T Thomas in 1987, who later entered into an agreement for sale with one Chettiyappan.

Even though K T Thomas purported to cancel the sale deeds, the litigation between the parties has led to sale deeds in favour of Chettiyappan being upheld. In 1994, the legal heirs of Chettiyappan entered into an agreement for sale with one of the applicants in the original application. In 1980, the State had notified 263 acres out of the 873 acres as vested forest, but in 1994, an original application was filed by legal heirs of Chettiyappan through the original applicant, challenging the notification.

The Tribunal disposed of the application regarding the EFL Act first and held that the entire extent of land (263 acres) was not an EFL land and it further held that it will be subject to the proceedings under the Vesting Act. With regard to the Vesting Act, the Tribunal held that the portion of the property identified in a Commissioner's Report and sketch was not vested forest under the Vesting Act. The appeals are filed challenging these findings.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the original application challenging a 1980 vesting notification was barred by limitation under Rule 3(1) of the Kerala (Private Forests) Tribunal Rules, 1972.

Under Rule 3(1), an application under Section 8 of the Vesting Act must be filed within 60 days from August 6, 1981; or the date of publication of notification under Rule 2A(2) of the Vesting Rules, 1974, whichever is later.

The notification in question was dated March 4, 1980. However, the challenge was filed only on July 12, 1994, nearly 14 years later.

The applicants contended that limitation had not commenced because there was no proof of proper publication under Rule 2A(2), which mandates publication of the notification in specified offices such as the Village Office, Panchayat Office, Forest Tribunal Office, Range Office, Divisional Forest Office, and Custodian's Office. Relying on Thanka v State of Kerala [2001 (3) KLT 801], it was argued that compliance with Rule 2A(2) is crucial to trigger limitation.

The High Court held that the State had sufficiently demonstrated compliance with the statutory publication requirements by publishing the notifications in Kerala Kaumudi daily and Malayala Manorama daily on 20.05.1980 and 18.05.1980 respectively.

The Bench held that publication in newspapers acknowledging compliance with Rule 2A(2) raised a valid presumption that office publication had indeed been carried out. In the absence of any specific pleading or evidence to the contrary, the presumption under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act stood unrebutted.

“What sub-rule (3) of Rule 2A stipulates is a publication that a notification in terms of Rule 2A(2) has been published in the concerned offices. In the facts of the present case, the publication under sub-rule 3 leads to a presumption that the notification was published in the offices as required under Rule 2A(2).” Court noted

The applicants argued that even if the Tribunal erred on limitation, Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure barred appellate interference since limitation does not relate to jurisdiction.

The Court dismissed this contention, clarifying that Section 99 applies only to errors such as misjoinder, non-joinder, or procedural irregularities not affecting merits or jurisdiction. A finding on limitation does not fall within that protective umbrella.

The Court thus held that the original application having been filed fourteen years after the date of notification is barred by limitation.

“The original application, having been filed fourteen years after the date of notification under Rule 2(A)(2) of the Vesting Rules, is hopelessly barred by limitation. The finding of the Tribunal to the contrary is liable to be set aside and we do so.” the Court held.

The Tribunal's order in favour of the applicants was therefore set aside, and the original application under the Vesting Act was dismissed as time-barred.

Another issue that was considered was with regard to the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003, under which the entire 873-acre property had been notified as EFL, including the 263 acres covered by the earlier vesting notification.

With the vesting challenge failing on limitation, the Court examined whether the remaining approximately 609 acres qualified as ecologically fragile land.

Relying on a Committee report under Rule 18; and expert Commissioner reports which included that specialists in cardamom, tea, and civil engineering, the Court found that the bulk of the land consisted of long-duration plantation crops such as tea and rubber, alongside cardamom, arecanut, and pepper cultivation. The property also contained residential, factory, and office buildings, employing around 350 workers.

The Court held that such land did not meet the statutory criteria under Section 3(1) of the EFL Act.

“The EFL notification, in so far as it relates to the area of land excluding the land notified under the Vesting Act is liable to be set aside. The OA under the EFL Act is liable to be allowed, but only in respect of the remaining 609 acres.” Court held.

Accordingly, while the vesting notification over 263 acres stood undisturbed, the EFL notification was set aside in respect of the remaining plantation extent.

Case Title: State of Kerala and Ors. Kurien E Kalathil and connected cases

Case No: MFA (Forest) 31/ 2018 and connected cases

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 104

Counsel for Appellant: Nagaraj Narayanan (Spl. GP)

Counsel for Respondents: K A Sanjeetha, Zakeer Hussain, M Ramesh Chander (Sr.), Nisha John, Balu Tom, Zakeer Hussain