JUDGMENT : VIJU ABRAHAM, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to restore the land as per Ext.P1 judgment to the petitioner, without any delay. 2. Petitioner's father Shri.Ahammedkutty, filed OA No.487/1976, before the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad under Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act 1971, challenging vesting of his land having an extent of 7.35 Acres in Palakkad. The Tribunal allowed OA No.487/1976 in part, allowing the claim with respect to 2.66 Acres out of the 7.35 Acres claimed in the original application. An appeal was preferred by the Forest department as MFA No.472 of 1987 which has ultimately dismissed as per Ext.P1 confirming the order passed by the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad. 3. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that though the appeal was dismissed as early as 1990 as per Ext.P1 judgment, the direction in the judgment has not been complied with by restoring the property to the petitioner. On the death of his father, the petitioner approached the 2 nd respondent and requested to restore the land allowed as per Ext.P1 to the legal heir of Shri.Ahammedkutty without any delay, the petitioner was informed that it is only due to the non-completion of the survey and preparation of the sketch that the property could not be restored. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P8 sketch approved by the Assistant Director of Forest Mini Survey. Except for the prepared Ext.P8 sketch, no report or any proceedings were initiated to restore the land to the petitioner till date. It is in the said circumstance, that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the above writ petition. 4. The stand taken by the Forest Department is that as per the order passed by the Forest Tribunal and confirmed in appeal by this Court as per Ext.P1 judgment, an extent of 2.66 acres was found to be not vested forest. Out of the 2.66 acres an extent of 0.5262 hectares (1.30 acres) in Survey No.456/13pt.,is lying contiguous to Vested Forests consisting of natural vegetation has been vested in the Government as per the provisions of the Kerala Forest(Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 and a proposal for notifying the same has been submitted to the Chief Forest Conservator, Eastern Circle, Palakkad as per Ext.R2(a). As regards 0.3684 hectares (0.91 Acres) in Survey No.457/2pt,3pt,4pt, out of the 2.66 Acres allowed to the OA applicant could be restored to the legal heir of the OA applicant Shri.Ahammedkutty and that the Assistant Director, Forest Mini Survey, Kozhikode has submitted the approved sketch and restoration proposal of the above land and the same was submitted to the Custodian of Vested Forests by the DFO Nenmara on 18.02.2025. 45 cents allowed by the Court in Re-survey No.451/4,15 is outside the periphery of Vested Forest and not surveyed or demarcated as Vested Forests, and therefore, a formal restoration is not required for this land. 5. In the additional counter affidavit, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that a further clarification is required regarding conflict of claim in respect of the said property and submits that the petitioner herein is one of the children of the OA applicant and other legal heirs are not impleaded as necessary parties. The conflict of claim is regarding the lands claimed by the writ petitioner and his relatives in OA No.43/2020 and OA No.97/2020 before the Forest Tribunal Palakkad, which includes the land for which restoration is sought as per the petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it is true that an O.A has been preferred by the petitioner as OA No.43 of 2020 and that an application has been preferred as IA No.45 of 2024 in OA No.43 of 2020 requesting the Tribunal to delete item No.2 from the present OA as the said item of property was an item in the earlier OA filed by his father as OA No.487/1976. On the basis of the same, it is contended by the learned Special Government Pleader (Forests), an extent of 0.3684 hectares (0.91 Acres) in Survey No.457/2pt,3pt,4pt can be restored to the legal heirs of the OA applicant, late Sri.Ahammedkutty, on production of required documents proving derivation of valid legal title and entitlement from late Sri.Ahammedkutty, the applicant in OA No.487/1976. On the basis of the same, it is contended by the learned Special Government Pleader (Forests), an extent of 0.3684 hectares (0.91 Acres) in Survey No.457/2pt,3pt,4pt can be restored to the legal heirs of the OA applicant, late Sri.Ahammedkutty, on production of required documents proving derivation of valid legal title and entitlement from late Sri.Ahammedkutty, the applicant in OA No.487/1976. The learned Special Government Pleader further submits that an extent of 0.5262 hectares (1.30 acres) out of 2.66 acres allowed to the OA applicant has already been vested in the Government as per the Kerala Forest(Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act,2003 and it is the case of an automatic vesting from the date of the commencement of the Act and the petitioner if aggrieved by the said vesting, has approached the Forest Tribunal as per Section 10 of the EFL Act, 2003. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the said stand taken by the learned Special Government Pleader regarding automatic vesting of the land is without any basis and the petitioner relying on the judgment of this Court in State of Kerala & Others v. Kumari Varma 2011 1 KLT 1008 submits that only a proposal for notifying the same as EFL is issued as per Ext.R2(a) and no notification has been issued and further submits that when there is an order passed by this Court as per Ext.P1 as early as on 23.07.1990 the authorities were duty bound to restore the said land in obedience to the direction issued in Ext.P1 and the order of the Forest Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner specifically referred to paragraphs 26 and 29 of the judgment in Kumari Varma 's case cited supra, which reads as follows: “26. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that it does not lie in the mouth of the State to submit that though the respondent is illegally deprived of the possession of the rights on the lands in question thereby deprived of the right to carry on the cultivation of the cardamom plantation, the lands in dispute acquire the character of “forest” by virtue of the fact that the land is covered with naturally grown trees and undergrowth. The learned counsel argued that acceptance of the submission of the State would amount to permitting the State to take advantage of an illegality committed by it under the guise of the Private Forests Act. He relied upon the decision of this Court reported in Mohammed v. State of Kerala [ 1986 KLT 681 ]. The case arose under the Private Forests Act. The question was whether lands proved to be lands covered by rubber plantation prior to the commencement of the said Act, but the rubber plants were destroyed by fire just around the time of the Act can be treated as lands principally used for the cultivation of rubber and therefore exempt from the operation of the Act. It was held:- “It is improper and inadvisable to conclude definitely that the lands involved in such instances cease to be rubber plantation as soon as the rubber trees cease to exist therein. .................... If measures are in contemplation to replant the area with rubber, the intermediate stage, when the land does not contain rubber plants, is not decisive in determining the nature of the use of the land. Merely because the duration of that intermediate stage is prolonged, no hard and fast inference shall be drawn that the idea of replantation of the land did not exist”. The learned counsel also argued that even under the scheme of the Ecologically Fragile Lands Act it is not intended to cover lands which are used principally for the cultivation of crops of long duration, such as tea, coffee, cardamom, etc., as can be seen from the definition of the expression “forest” under Section 2 of the said Act. In other words, the learned counsel argued that even if a particular piece of land satisfies the definition of “forest” otherwise, if it is used for a long period for cultivation of the abovementioned crops, they are not required to be treated as forest lands. 29. We reject the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General. There was no intention on the part of the respondent to abandon the cultivation of cardamom as was pointed out by the Supreme Court in para 37 of Bhavani Tea case (supra). The respondent was prevented by the State to continue the cultivation by denying possession to the respondent on a wrong interpretation of the Private Forests Act, 1971. There was no intention on the part of the respondent to abandon the cultivation of cardamom as was pointed out by the Supreme Court in para 37 of Bhavani Tea case (supra). The respondent was prevented by the State to continue the cultivation by denying possession to the respondent on a wrong interpretation of the Private Forests Act, 1971. We see substantial force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that on an appropriate interpretation of the various provisions of the Act, the State cannot be permitted to take advantage of a wrong committed by it in depriving the respondent of the legal rights to cultivate the lands in dispute by wrongly invoking Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act . Such an interpretation, in our opinion, is not necessarily inconsistence with the purpose sought to be achieved by the Ecologically Fragile Lands Act. If the State is of the opinion that the land in question is such an ecologically fragile land as on today which is required to be protected, it is still open to the State to notify the land to be ecologically fragile land under Section 4 of the said Act subject, of course, following the appropriate procedure stipulated under the Act.” In Kumari Varma 's case cited supra, the Court held that the land owner was prevented by the State to continue the cultivation by denying possession of the land on a wrong interpretation of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act , 1971 and the State cannot be permitted to take advantage of a wrong committed by it in depriving the respondent the legal rights to cultivate the lands in dispute by wrongly invoking the provisions of the Kerala Private Forests(Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The Court further observed that if the State is of the opinion that the land in question is an ecologically fragile land as on today, it is open to the State notified the land as ecologically fragile land under Section 4 of the said Act, 1971 subject to the following appropriate procedures stipulated under the Act and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. The learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) would submit that the State being aggrieved by the judgment in Kumari Varma 's case cited supra, has preferred an appeal before the Apex Court and the appeal is pending consideration. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) would submit that the State being aggrieved by the judgment in Kumari Varma 's case cited supra, has preferred an appeal before the Apex Court and the appeal is pending consideration. 7. The Forest Tribunal allowed the claim of the petitioner in respect of 2.66 acres of land, against which an appeal was preferred by the State and the appeal was dismissed as per Ext.P1 judgment in MFA No.472 of 1987 on 23.07.1990. Even after the lapse of almost 35 years the property has not been restored to the petitioner. Even in the counter affidavit filed by the Forest Department, only a proposal for notifying the said land as an ecologically fragile land is only submitted to the Chief Forest Conservator, and the property has not been notified yet. A similar issue was considered by this Court in Kumari Varma 's case cited supra, wherein it is held that the State cannot take advantage that the land in dispute acquired the character of a forest, especially when it happened only for the reason that the State has deprived the respondent illegally of the possession of the right of the land in depriving them of the right to carry on the cultivation. But in the said judgment, the court has permitted the Government to notify the land to be an ecologically fragile land subject to following the appropriate procedures stipulated under the Act,1971, if the State is of the opinion that the land in question is such an ecologically fragile land as on date and the same is required to be protected. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, taking into consideration the fact that Ext.P1 judgment is as early as 1990, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, taking into consideration the fact that Ext.P1 judgment is as early as 1990, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Since a contention has been raised by the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) as to whether the petitioner is the only legal heir of the deceased applicant in the OA, and that whether any other claim by any other legal heirs in respect of the said property, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition as follows: The respondents 1 to 3 shall take steps to restore the land covered by Ext.P1 judgment to the petitioner without any delay, at any rate, within an outer limit of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment subject to the condition that the petitioner shall to the satisfaction of the respondents that he is the only legal heir of late Shri.Ahammedkutty, who is the OA applicant and further that there are no other claims from any of the legal heirs in respect of the land covered by Ext.P1 and the order in OA No.487 of 1976. If there is any confusion whether any other person has any claim in respect of the subject property covered by Ext.P1 judgment and OA No.487 of 1976, the respondents will be free to call for necessary details in this regard from the petitioner and the petitioner shall furnish the same without any delay.