JUDGMENT : The petitioner was the owner of 2.15 Acres of land in Erumayur Village in Palakkad District. While the petitioner was in occupation and enjoyment of the property, the Government issued notification dated 01.09.2009, under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Land) Act, 2003, (for short 'EFL Act'), notifying the petitioner's property to be ecologically fragile land vested in the Government. Thereupon, the petitioner raised a dispute by submitting an application under Section 10A(1) of the EFL Act. The first respondent; Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (for short “PCCF”) before whom the application was filed, referred the matter to the Ecologically Fragile Land Claim Dispute Redressal Committee (for short “the Committee”) constituted under Section 10B. The Committee inspected the petitioner's land and furnished a report to the PCCF, recommending to retain the land as ecologically fragile land. The PCCF forwarded the report along with his recommendations to the Government. Based on the recommendation of the Committee, the Government issued Ext.P12, directing the first respondent to maintain the petitioner's land as ecologically fragile land. The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P12 and for a declaration that the procedure adopted by the Committee is in gross violation of the relevant rules and the prescribed procedure. 2. Heard Sri.P.Babukumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sandesh Raja, learned Special Government Pleader (Forest). 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, after the petitioner came to be in ownership and possession of the land, a notification was issued under Section 3 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, (for short, 'Vesting and Assignment Act') declaring the property to be private forest vested in the Government. The petitioner filed an original application before the Forest Tribunal, claiming exemption from vesting in terms of Section 3 (2) of the Vesting and Assignment Act. The original application was allowed under Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal dated 30.01.1980. According to the learned Counsel, in spite of repeated requests, the property was not restored to the petitioner's possession. Instead, a notification under the EFL Act was issued 29 years later, to scuttle the restoration. Contention is advanced based on the report of the Committee that, majority of the members of the Committee had recommended for excluding the land from the purview of EFL, in spite of which, recommendation was made to retain the land as EFL. Instead, a notification under the EFL Act was issued 29 years later, to scuttle the restoration. Contention is advanced based on the report of the Committee that, majority of the members of the Committee had recommended for excluding the land from the purview of EFL, in spite of which, recommendation was made to retain the land as EFL. In support of this contention, attention is drawn to Ext.P8 report of the Committee wherein the Divisional Forest Officer, the MLA of Alathur Constituency, the Grama Panchayat President and the Agricultural Officer had opined that the property should be excluded from EFL. It is pointed out that four out of seven members of the Committee having favoured exclusion of the property from the purview of EFL, recommendation to the contrary in Ext.P8 is unsustainable. The learned Counsel submitted that the decision of the Government being based on the faulty recommendation of the Committee, the same is also liable to be invalidated. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the findings of the four members, recommending exclusion of the land from EFL, was made without understanding the purpose of the inspection and scope of the report under Section 10(A)(3)of the EFL Act. It is contended that the PCCF is not bound by the recommendation of the Committee and should have forwarded it to the Government along with his recommendation mandated under Section 10A(4) and the Government should have rendered its final decision thereon. It is pointed out that, going by Rule 21A of the EFL Rules, 2007, the PCCF is empowered to conduct further enquiries, even after receipt of the Committee’s report, before making his independent recommendation. It is hence contended that, irrespective of the Committee’s recommendation, the PCCF was entitled to make a different recommendation and the Government empowered to come to a decision based on that recommendation. The contention of the petitioner that Ext.P8 recommendation of the Committee is vitiated since it is against the majority view is refuted by pointing out that only three among the seven members had expressed dissent against the recommendation. Objection is also raised against the maintainability of the writ petition, in view of the alternative remedy by way of appeal to the Forest Tribunal provided under Section 10 of the EFL Act. 5. Objection is also raised against the maintainability of the writ petition, in view of the alternative remedy by way of appeal to the Forest Tribunal provided under Section 10 of the EFL Act. 5. On the question of maintainability, it is to be considered that the writ petition was filed in the year 2014 and has been pending with an interim order all these years. In that view of the matter, it will be improper to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of maintainability at this point of time. 6. In order to consider the validity or otherwise of Ext.P8 report and the recommendation therein, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions under the EFL Act and the Rules there under. Section 3(1) of the EFL Act provides for transfer and vesting of the ownership and possession of all ecologically fragile lands held by any person or any other form of right over them in the Government, free from all encumbrances, whereupon the right, title and interest of the owner or any other person thereon shall stand extinguished from that date. Section 3(2) of the EFL Act mandates a notification in the Gazette, of the lands vested in the Government and, of informing the owner regarding the issuance of the notification. Section 10A deals with dispute redressal in respect of lands having an extent of not more than two hectares. The land in question being less than two hectares, Section 10A applies. The relevant portion of Section 10A of the EFL Act is extracted hereunder:- “10A. Dispute Redressal in respect of lands having an extent of not more than two hectares.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10, if any owner of the land which has been notified under section 3 and having an extent of not more than two hectares as on 2nd day of June, 2000 has any dispute as to whether such land is an ecologically fragile land or not, may file an application before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests for the settlement of such dispute: Provided that no dispute in respect of any land which was already been decided by the Tribunal under section 10 shall be re-opened under subsection (1). (2) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests shall refer the dispute to the Ecologically Fragile Land Claim Dispute Redressal Committee constituted under section 10B and shall if any proceedings pertaining to the land referred to in the said application is pending before any Tribunal, communicate the fact to the said Tribunal and on such communication further proceedings in respect of such land before the Tribunal shall stand suspended. (3) On such reference under section (2), the Ecologically Fragile Land Claim Dispute Redressal Committee shall after inspecting the land in dispute furnish a detailed report within six months from the date of receipt of the application to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests regarding the nature of the land, trees and other vegetation on the land. (4) Immediately on receipt of the report under sub-section (3), the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests shall forward the same with his recommendations to Government and the decision of the Government thereon shall be final”. It can be seen that, as per Section 10A(2), the PCCF has to refer the dispute to the Committee constituted under Section 10B, consisting of seven specified members. On such reference, the Committee should inspect the land and furnish a detailed report to the PCCF regarding the nature, trees and vegetation on the land. Therefore, the role of the Committee is only to submit a report with its findings and not to make a recommendation. As would be evident from Sub Section (4) of Section 10A of the EFL Act, the duty of making the recommendation is bestowed on the PCCF, which should be based on the report of the Committee and enquiry, if any, independently conducted by that authority. The expression in Section 10A(4) that, 'the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests' shall forward the same (report of the Committee) with his recommendation to the Government and the decision of the Government thereon shall be final', leaves no room for doubt that the decision of the Government should be based on the report of the Committee and the recommendation of the PCCF. 7. 7. As far as the instant case is concerned, though it is true that four among the seven members of the Committee had opined that the petitioner's land should be excluded from the purview of EFL, only three among the seven members had expressed their dissent against the recommendation made by the Committee. But, neither the recommendation nor the dissent is of any avail since, Sub Section (3) of Section 10A do not provide for such a recommendation. Rule 21A (v)(7) of the EFL Rules stipulates that the report of the Committee with dissent notes, if any, should be submitted to the PCCF with the signatures of all the members who were present during the inspection. As per Clause (9) of Sub-rule (v) of Rule 21A, on receipt of the report, the PCCF can conduct appropriate further enquiry and if necessary, require the applicant to produce further documents. Rule 21A(v)(10) stipulates that along with his detailed report and recommendation, the PCCF should submit the report of the Committee and the details if any, of the further enquiry conducted by the PCCF. The decision of the Government should be based on all the materials thus forwarded. 8. Therefore, going by the plain meaning of Sub Section (3) of Section 10A and the procedure prescribed under Rule 21A, the role of the Committee is to inspect the land and furnish a report containing its finding regarding the nature of the land, trees and other vegetation and nothing more. The recommendation should come from the PCCF and the decision of the Government should be based on the material forwarded by the PCCF. From a reading of Ext.P12, it is clear that the Government's decision to retain the petitioner's land as EFL, was solely based on the recommendation of the Committee. Since the Committee had no such recommendatory power, the decision of the Government cannot be sustained. 9. The learned Special Government Pleader points out that in Ext.P11 Circulation Note, mention is made about the PCCF's recommendation to retain the disputed land as EFL. It is not discernible from the exhibits as to whether the PCCF had made his recommendation relying on the recommendation of the Committee or based on other independent materials. 10. 9. The learned Special Government Pleader points out that in Ext.P11 Circulation Note, mention is made about the PCCF's recommendation to retain the disputed land as EFL. It is not discernible from the exhibits as to whether the PCCF had made his recommendation relying on the recommendation of the Committee or based on other independent materials. 10. In such circumstances, I deem it appropriate that Ext.P8 report of the Committee be considered by the first respondent, dehors the recommendation therein and a fresh recommendation made to the Government based on the report and the further enquiry if any conducted in the manner prescribed in Rule 21A (v) (9). On receipt of the first respondent's recommendation along with the Committee's report, the Government shall take a decision as mandated under Section 10A(4) of the EFL Act. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the following manner: (i) The decision of the Government pertaining to the petitioner's land, communicated under Ext.P12, is set aside. (ii) The first respondent shall make a fresh recommendation to the Government based on Ext.P8 report of the Committee without taking into account the recommendation therein. (iii) On receipt of the recommendation of the PCCF along with the report of the Committee, the Government shall come to an independent decision, untrammelled by its earlier decision. (iv) The entire process, from the fresh recommendation by the first respondent to the final decision of the Government, shall be completed within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.