JUDGMENT : Sathish Ninan, J. The original application seeking declaration that the application schedule properties are not ecologically fragile lands and are not vested with the Government under the Kerala Forests (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the EFL Act”), was dismissed by the Tribunal. The applicants are in appeal. 2. The OA schedule consists of two items of properties, item 1 having an extent of 67.73 Ares situated in Survey No.1131 of Peerumedu village, and item 2 having an extent of 99.15 Ares in Survey No.1360 of Peerumedu village. The items lie together as a single holding. The properties belong to the applicants under Exts.A1 and A2 Sale Deeds of the year 2002. Exts.A3 and A4 are the basic title deeds, which are “Pattas” issued under the Land Assignment Act. A granite quarry is being conducted in the property. According to the applicants the unit had been functioning in the property since the year 1994. Ext.B1 notification has been issued notifying an extent of 15 hectares, which include the OA schedule properties, under the EFL Act. The applicants claimed that the properties are not ecologically fragile lands. It is accordingly that the original application was filed. 3. The Tribunal held that the applicants failed to establish that the property was principally used for cultivation of crops of long duration and hence is not liable to be exempted from the classification of “ecologically fragile land” under the EFL Act. 4. We have heard Sri.M.P.Madhavan Kutty on behalf of the appellants and Sri.Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest). 5. The short question for determination in the appeal is, whether the OA schedule properties which is a rocky area having an extent of 4.12 acres with only 5 trees thereon, but to a large extent is covered by wild creepers and “kattu payar” (Mucuna Bracteata), is a “forest land” and an “ecologically fragile land” as defined under Section 2 of the EFL Act. With regard to the nature of the property as noticed above, there is no dispute. 6. Before we proceed further, it would be appropriate to refer to the definitions of “ecologically fragile lands”, “forest”, and “land” under Section 2 of the EFL Act. With regard to the nature of the property as noticed above, there is no dispute. 6. Before we proceed further, it would be appropriate to refer to the definitions of “ecologically fragile lands”, “forest”, and “land” under Section 2 of the EFL Act. The same reads thus :- “2(b) “ecologically fragile lands” means,- (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; and (ii) any land declared to be an ecologically fragile land by the Government by notification in the official Gazette under S.4.” “(c)“forest” means any land principally covered with naturally grown trees and undergrowth and includes any forest statutorily recognised 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 building and surroundings essential for the convenient use of such buildings. “(d) “land” includes rivers, streams and its origin and other water bodies.” To be an “ecologically fragile land” the property must be, (i) a forest land, (ii) it must lie contiguous to or must be encircled by a forest land, and (iii) it must predominantly support natural vegetation. It could also be a land notified by the Government under Section 4 of the EFL Act as an ecologically fragile land, in which case the above conditions need not be satisfied. To fall within the definition of “forest”, the property must be principally covered with naturally grown trees and under growth. However, if the property is principally used for cultivation of crops of long duration like tea, coffee, rubber etc., it will stand excluded. So also the residential buildings if any with the surrounding sites, will stand excluded. Rule 2(l) of the EFL Rules prescribes such surrounding area as 0.5 hectares. 7. The term “land”, noticeably, has been defined very widely is an inclusive definition. A rocky area would fall within the definition of “land” noted above. 8. To be an “ecologically fragile land” the property in question must be a “forest land”. Therefore, the property must also satisfy the definition of “forest”. 7. The term “land”, noticeably, has been defined very widely is an inclusive definition. A rocky area would fall within the definition of “land” noted above. 8. To be an “ecologically fragile land” the property in question must be a “forest land”. Therefore, the property must also satisfy the definition of “forest”. As noticed supra, to be a forest, the land must be principally covered with naturally grown trees and under growth. Ext.C1 is the Commissioner's report in the OA. It reveals that though the property contains large bunch of wild creepers and “kattu payar” it contains only five trees. The State does not have a case that the property was principally covered with trees as on the appointed day viz. 02.06.2000 and that they were cut and removed by the appellants or their predecessors. The total extent of property is 67.73 Ares + 99.15 Ares = 166.88 Ares equal to approximately 4.12 acres. This entire extent contains only five trees. 9. In Sunny Samuel v. Government of Kerala ( 2023 (1) KHC 469 (DB)) this Court, while considering whether a scientifically planted grass land would satisfy the definition of “forest” under the EFL Act held that the presence of trees is mandatory. It was held thus, “Now coming to the requirement of the land being principally covered with naturally grown trees and undergrowth, we are again certain in our minds that the mandate is not satisfied to qualify the disputed land as a forest, under S.2(c). The finding of the Commissioner that there are only a few number of trees in the scheduled property substantiates that the requirement of land being principally covered with naturally grown trees is not satisfied. …..” Therein this Court relied on an earlier judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. C. Sivan (2022 KHC online 1065(DB)) wherein this Court held “lands which are principally covered with naturally grown trees and undergrowth alone would answer the definition of 'forest' and 'forest land' as defined in the Act and that, absence of trees would take the land away from the definition of forest.” 10. Sri.Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) drew our attention to the preamble of the Act to impress upon us that the very purpose of the Act is conservation of biological diversity, ecosystems, natural habitats and minimisation of the reduction or degradation of such systems. Sri.Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) drew our attention to the preamble of the Act to impress upon us that the very purpose of the Act is conservation of biological diversity, ecosystems, natural habitats and minimisation of the reduction or degradation of such systems. We do notice that similar contentions were urged by the learned counsel in C.Sivan's case supra. It is after due consideration of the same and the definitions of the terms “ecologically fragile lands”, “forest land” that this Court held that the absence of trees would take a land away from the definition of “forest” and even “forest land” under the EFL Act. We will not be justified in violating the language of the Section by referring to the object of the Act. 11. Incidentally we notice that in State of Kerala v. Unnikrishnan 2013 (2) KHC 245 this Court held that rocky lands do not support natural vegetation and does not fall within the definition of “ecologically fragile land”. The Court held :- “..... There can be forest lands which do not support natural vegetation, which are outside the purview of the definition of 'ecologically fragile land'. Rocky lands are lands which do not support natural vegetation.” 12. As was noticed, the total extent of OA schedule property is approximately 4.12 acres. Only five trees were found in the entire extent. It is practically a case of, absence of trees. Hence the properties in question will not fall within the definition of “forest” and “ecologically fragile land” as defined under the EFL Act. 13. Though the appellants had a contention that the property does not lie contiguous to a forest land, the contention is disproved even by Ext.A9 survey map produced by the appellants. 14. So also we do not find force in the contention of the appellants that, out of the 15 hectares notified under Ext.B1 certain portions have been de-notified and therefore, the present properties are also to be exempted. Whether a property has been wrongly included in the notification or not depends on the satisfaction of the ingredients of “ecologically fragile land” under the EFL Act. The mere fact that a portion of the property included in the notification was de-notified, is not a ground to exclude the scheduled property. 15. Whether a property has been wrongly included in the notification or not depends on the satisfaction of the ingredients of “ecologically fragile land” under the EFL Act. The mere fact that a portion of the property included in the notification was de-notified, is not a ground to exclude the scheduled property. 15. However, we have already held that the scheduled properties does not fall within the definition of “ecologically fragile land”, it being not a “forest” under the EFL Act. 16. To hold that the application schedule property is an ecologically fragile land, the Tribunal, in interpreting the definition of “forest” held that, since the application schedule properties are not principally cultivated with crops of long duration, the first part of the Section must be deemed to have been satisfied and hence the property is a vested forest. We are unable to agree with the learned Tribunal. On a plain reading of the Section it is clear that, the first part of the Section defines a forest under the EFL Act, and the latter part of the Section carves out an exclusion from the main part. Merely because the second part of the Section does not apply, will not automatically satisfy the first part of the Section. 17. On the above discussions, we find that the application schedule properties do not fall within the definition of “ecologically fragile land” under the EFL Act. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The original application will stand allowed declaring that the OA schedule properties are not ecologically fragile lands and are not vested with the Government under the EFL Act.