JUDGMENT : Shaji P. Chaly, J. The appeal is filed by the petitioner in the writ petition challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P(C). No.20595 of 2020 dated 6.10.2020, whereby the writ petition was dismissed holding that appellant is free to approach the Tribunal as per Section 10 of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2003'), if the appellant is aggrieved by Ext.P1 notification issued by the Government of Kerala, Forest and Wildlife Department, dated 19.6.2020. It was also held that there would not be any legal impediment for the Tribunal for entertaining such a petition in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Thresiamma Varghese and Others v. State of Kerala [ 2018 (1) KHC 327 ]. The appellant was also given the liberty to file a petition for interim orders, which was directed to be considered by the Tribunal and the writ petition was disposed of leaving open all the contentions raised by both parties. Thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment, this appeal is preferred. 2. Basic material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The appellant is a Private Limited Company and alleged to be the owner and title holder of a coffee plantation with an ad measurement 146.76 Acres equivalent to 59.41 Hectares. While so, Act 2003 came into force with effect from 2.6.2000, whereby ecologically fragile land in possession of any person, having characteristics as prescribed under Section 2(b) (i), 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; (ii) any land declared to be an ecologically fragile land by the Government by notification in the Gazette under Section 4 of the Act, 2003, became vested with the State Government /declared to be vested with the Government . 3. 3. It is the case of the Appellant that, by virtue of the definition of Forest under Section 2(c) of Act 2003, only land principally covered with naturally grown trees and undergrowth and includes any forest statutorily recognized 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 buildings and surroundings essential for the convenient use of such buildings. Therefore, according to the appellant, the property belonging to the appellant situated in Survey No.581/P of Kallamala Village of Mannarkkad Taluk is a plantation as on the date of commencement of the Act i.e., 02.06.2000 but was notified as an ecologically fragile land. Any how, Ext.P1 notification dated 19.6.2020 was issued by the State Government admittedly under section 3 (2) of Act 2003, which according to the appellant is after 20 years from the date of commencement of the Act and that too, in respect of a non-forest land i.e., plantation, which is totally exempted from the purview of the Act, 2003. The sum and substance of the legal contention advanced by the appellant is that the Act 2003 contemplates two kinds of vesting of ecologically fragile lands i.e., one under Section 3 and the other under Section 4 of the Act, 2003. 4. Vesting under Section 3 of the Act can only be forest land whereas, under Section 4 (1), the Government can declare any land to be ecologically fragile land and for that purpose, it has to get a report of the expert committee under Section 15 of the Act, 2003 and then make a declaration, after hearing the land owner. The case projected by the appellant is that, unlike the statutory procedure and safeguards under Section 4, the notification under Section 3(2) can only be issued within five years from the commencement of the Act, which according to the appellant is clear from Section 10(1) (c) of the Act dealing with settlement of disputes by the Tribunal as well as Section 17 of the Act, dealing with power of the Government to remove difficulties. To put it otherwise, the predominant contention put forth is that beyond the period of five years as is prescribed under Sections 3 and 17 of Act, 2003, no vesting is legally permissible. 5. It is also the contention of the appellant that if at all Government wants to get the land notified as an ecologically fragile land after the period of five years, it can only resort to Section 4 of the Act, 2003, after getting an inspection report of the expert committee constituted under Section 15 of Act, 2003. These were the basic challenges made by the petitioner to Ext.P1 notification issued by the State Government dated 19.6.2020, in the writ petition. That apart it is submitted that looking from any angle there is no appeal provided to the Tribunal from any proceeding initiated under section 3(2) of Act 2003 and therefore appellant had no other alternative than to invoke the writ remedy provided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Be that as it may, the question primarily considered by the learned Single Judge was the maintainability of the writ petition. 6. The learned Single Judge, after considering the contentions so put forth by the petitioner and taking into account the arguments advanced by the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest), has found that in the Division Bench Judgment in Thresiamma Varghese (supra), the notification under Section 3(2) of the Act 2003 was issued on 5.9.2012 and the petitioner submitted an application before the Tribunal in 2017 stating that she came to know about it only on 28.2.2017. The Tribunal dismissed the application holding that there was a delay of 1498 days. The Tribunal dismissed the application holding that there was a delay of 1498 days. However, after analysing various provisions including Sections 3 and 19 of the Act 2003, the provisions of Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of E.F.L.) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 2007') and Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of EFL) Tribunal Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ' Tribunal Rules, 2007'), the Division Bench found that there is no provision in the Act, which compels an owner of the land to approach the Tribunal within a particular period on notifying in the gazette under section 3 (2) of Act 2003, and that the provisions available for approaching the custodian and Rules 3(1) of the Tribunal Rules 2007 or the proviso thereto cannot have any application since the Custodian of the Forest was not approached by the party. It was also found therein that an anomaly was created by Rules by not providing any provision for preferring any appeal from the notification under section 3 (2) of Act 2003 and therefore Tribunal was directed to consider the application on merits giving liberty to the Department to raise their contentions on delay. However, learned Single Judge found that in the instant writ petition, there is no delay. It was accordingly observed that the petitioner was free to approach the Tribunal under Section 10 of the Act against Ext. P1 notification. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri. C.S. Manilal and learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) Sri. K. Sandesh Raja and perused the pleadings and materials on record. 8. Learned counsel for appellant advanced arguments basically relying upon sections 3, 4, 10 and 17 of the Act, 2003 and Rule 3 of the Tribunal Rules, 2007. In order to have a better understanding of the arguments advanced, it is only appropriate that Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, 2003 are extracted: 3. 8. Learned counsel for appellant advanced arguments basically relying upon sections 3, 4, 10 and 17 of the Act, 2003 and Rule 3 of the Tribunal Rules, 2007. In order to have a better understanding of the arguments advanced, it is only appropriate that Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, 2003 are extracted: 3. Ecologically fragile land to vest in Government.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or tribunal or in any custom, contract or other documents, with effect from the date of commencement of this Act, the ownership and possession of all ecologically fragile lands held by any person or any other form of right over them, 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 thereon shall stand extinguished from the said date. (2) The lands vested in the Government under subsection (1) shall be notified in the Gazette and the owner shall be informed in writing by the custodian and the notification shall be placed before the Advisory committee constituted under section 15 for perusal. 4. Power to declare ecologically fragile land.-(1) The Government shall have power to declare, by notification in the Gazette, any land to be ecologically fragile land on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee appointed for the purpose under section 15 of this Act. (2) No declaration under sub-section (1) shall be made without giving the owner a notice of thirty days for being heard. (3) No person shall change the legal or physical status or ownership of the land proposed to be declared as an ecologically fragile land after the notice issued under subsection (2). (4) With effect from the date of declaration of any land as ecologically fragile land under sub-section (1), the ownership and possession of the land or any other form of right over it, shall subject to the provisions of this Act, stand transferred to and vested in the Government free form all encumbrance and the right, title and interest of the owner or any other person thereon shall stand extinguished from the said date. 9. 9. On a reading of Section 3(1), it is quite clear and evident that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or tribunal or in any custom, contract or other documents, with effect from the date of commencement of this Act, 2003, the ownership and possession of all ecologically fragile lands held by any person or any other form of right over them, 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 thereon shall stand extinguished form the said date. Therefore the imperative conditions contained under Section 3(1) makes it clear that as on the date of commencement of the Act, all the lands having the characteristics of an ecologically fragile land defined under Section 2(b) would vest in the Government automatically, which thus means Section 3(1) of the Act makes it clear that there is no notification required apart from the introduction of the Act for the vesting of ecologically fragile lands in the State Government. However, Sub-section (2) of Section 3 imposes a condition that the land so vested under Section 3(1) in the Government, shall be notified in the Gazette and the owner shall be notified in writing by the custodian, and the notification shall be placed before the Advisory Committee constituted under Section 15 for perusal. 10. Section 4(1) deals with power to declare ecologically fragile land, by which the Government is vested with powers to declare by notification in the Gazette, any land to be ecologically fragile land on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee appointed for the purpose under Section 15 of Act, 2003. There are other mandatory conditions imposed under Section 4. On a harmonious reading of Sections 3 and 4, of Act 2003, it is clear that both operate in different fields. Now the question is, what is the remedy available to a person under the Act and the Rules to raise a dispute to redress his grievances in such contingencies? 11. Section 10 deals with settlement of disputes by the Tribunal and it reads thus:- "10. Now the question is, what is the remedy available to a person under the Act and the Rules to raise a dispute to redress his grievances in such contingencies? 11. Section 10 deals with settlement of disputes by the Tribunal and it reads thus:- "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 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,- (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." 12. The contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that going by Section 10, a notification section 3 (2) of Act 2003 has to be issued within five years from the date of commencement of this Act or within six months from the date of notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 declaring the land to be ecologically fragile land. 13. However, we are of the considered opinion that the first limb of the provision made under Section 10 (c) discussed deals with the claim of a person whose land has been vested in the Government as per section 3(1), and that such a claim can be made within five years from the date of commencement of the Act, which thus means, if a person was having the knowledge with respect to the vesting of property as per section 3 (1) Act, 2003, then he was at liberty to make any application to the Tribunal within a period of five years claiming that the land is not an ecologically fragile land. To put it otherwise it is a provision simpliciter for raising a dispute before the Tribunal by an aggrieved person and it is not having any impact of depriving the Government from making any notification in contemplation of section 3 (2) of Act 2003. Said so, the period of five years prescribed under section 10 of Act 2003 will not detain the Custodian to proceed further to comply with the mandatory requirements contained under Section 3(2) of the Act, 2003. Said so, the period of five years prescribed under section 10 of Act 2003 will not detain the Custodian to proceed further to comply with the mandatory requirements contained under Section 3(2) of the Act, 2003. We say so because as per Sub-section (2) of Section 3, of Act 2003 once the land is vested in the Government as per Section 3(1), it shall be the duty of the custodian to notify in the Gazette and to inform the owner in writing and the notification shall be placed before the Advisory Committee, constituted under Section 15, for the purpose of perusal alone. 14. A glaring difference between Sections 3 and 4 of Act 2003 is that as per Section 3, on the date of commencement of the Act, all land having the characteristics of ecologically fragile land vested in the Government and such land has to be notified under section 3 (2) of the Act, whereas as per Section 4, the Government is at liberty to notify in the Gazette any land to be ecologically fragile land on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee appointed for the purpose under Section 15 of Act, 2003, at any point of time irrespective of the vesting of any land at the commencement of the Act as prescribed under section 3(1), by following the mandatory requirements contained under Section 4. Therefore, any person aggrieved by an action of the State Government under section 4(1) of the Act, 2003 is entitled to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal within six months from the date of notification issued under Section 4(1) of Act, 2003 or within such time as the Government may notify. Therefore we are in respectful agreement with the law laid down by the Division Bench of this court in Thresiamma Varghese (supra) and accordingly the appellant has to approach the Tribunal constituted for the purpose of raising the dispute, in accordance with law. 15. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant in that regard cannot be sustained at all. 15. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant in that regard cannot be sustained at all. Moreover, Section 17 of the Act deals only with the power of the Government to remove any difficulties, which specifies that, if any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of the Act, 2003, the Government may, by order do anything not inconsistent with such provisions, which appear to them necessary for the purpose of removing any difficulties. However, as per the proviso, the Government is curtailed from making any order under Section 17 after the expiry of five years from the commencement of the Act. 16. According to us, the stipulation of five years contained under Section 17 has nothing to do with the vesting of land in the State Government under Section 3 of the Act 2003. Section 17 is incorporated in Act 2003, so as to enable the Government by its own motion to remove any difficulties for implementation of the provisions of Act. Therefore, there is no basis for the contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellant in that regard vis-a-vis, the provisions of Section 3 and Section 10 of Act, 2003. 17. Now we come to the Rules prescribed under Section 3 of the Tribunal Rules, 2007, which reads thus : 3. Application to the Tribunal.-(1) Every application under Section 10 shall be made in Form "A" and shall be accompanied by a fee of five hundred rupees with such number of copies of the application and the documents, as are necessary to be served on the respondents within 3 months from the date decision of the Custodian or within 6 months from the date of communication of compensation under Section 8 as the case may be, submitted before the Tribunal: Provided that, in the case of petitions already disposed of by the Custodian, the application shall be submitted within three months from the date of notification of these Rules. (2) An application, which is found defective on scrutiny, may be returned for re-submission after curing defects within a specified time not exceeding two weeks by the Tribunal.” 18. (2) An application, which is found defective on scrutiny, may be returned for re-submission after curing defects within a specified time not exceeding two weeks by the Tribunal.” 18. Rule 3 of Rules 2007 takes care of only an application that is dealt with under Section 10 in regard to the decision of the custodian or against communication of compensation fixed under Section 8 of Act 2003 in contemplation of Section 4 (4) of Act 2003. We have already found that Section 10 takes care of only situation under Section 3(1) and Section 4 of Act 2003, whereas in the present case the issue with respect to vesting of land arose on the custodian issuing Ext.P1 notice under Section 3(2) of Act, 2003, which makes it clear that the said notification was issued for the information of public that as per Section 3(1) of the Act, the ownership and possession of ecologically fragile land given in the schedule in the district of Palakkad stands transferred and vested in the Government free from all encumbrances, title, interest, right of the owner or any other person thereon with effect from the commencement of the Act that is 2.6.2000. 19. As we have pointed out earlier, there is no limitation prescribed anywhere under Act 2003 to issue any notification published in the gazette under Section 3(2) of the Act 2003. Going by the provisions of the Act and the Rules we find that there is an anomaly so far as any notification issued under Section 3(2) is concerned, as there is no provision for preferring any appeal before the tribunal or any other authority under the Act or the Rules discussed above, as is held by the Division Bench of this Court in Thresiamma Varghese (supra). It is basic and fundamental that, in a democratic polity there can be no grievance without a remedy. This is more so in the instant case, since the automatic vesting of an ecologically fragile land in the State Government from the date of commencement of the Act 2003 is made known to the owner of the property only by notification in the gazette and in writing as provided under section 3 (2) of Act 2003. This is more so in the instant case, since the automatic vesting of an ecologically fragile land in the State Government from the date of commencement of the Act 2003 is made known to the owner of the property only by notification in the gazette and in writing as provided under section 3 (2) of Act 2003. Therefore the Judgment in Thresiamma Varghese has necessarily to govern the field especially due to the fact that the issues and the intricacies of the disputes can only be sorted out by a fact finding body, till such time the Government comes out with appropriate amendment to the law to tackle the situation as above. Upshot of the discussion is that appellant has not made out any grounds to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in an intra court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act. Needless to say, appeal fails, and it is accordingly dismissed.