JUDGMENT : Sathish Ninan, J. The Original Petitions challenging the notification under the Kerala Forests (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the EFL Act') was dismissed by the Tribunal. M.F.A.Nos.173 and 118 of 2011 are by the respective applicants in O.A.No.2 of 2007 and O.A.No.15 of 2008. M.F.A. (Forest) Nos.125 and 136 of 2017 are by third parties. They claim to be sharers in the property along with the applicants. 2. The property involved has an extent of 90 acres. It originally belonged to the Tavazhy of Devaki @ Ammukutty Nethiyar under Jenmom Assignment Deed No.2994/1940. On her death, the property vested with the members of her family, 45 in number. The property was notified under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Vesting Act'). A few members of the family challenged the same in O.A.No.156 of 1979. After an initial round of remand, the Original Application was finally allowed by this Court as per the judgment dated09.03.1993 in M.F.A. (Forest) No.445 of 1987. 3. On the failure of the State to restore possession of the property, there was a Writ Petition before this Court followed by Contempt of Case (C) No.281 of 1997. Finally, the property was restored possession of, on 22.12.1997. Simultaneously, the property was notified under Section 5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act , 1986. This was followed by the notification under the EFL Act dated 02.01.2001. The same is under challenge in the Original Applications filed by two members of the family. 4. The applicants contended that the property is not an ecologically fragile land under the EFL Act and that it is not covered with naturally grown trees and undergrowth. It was claimed that the land is principally used for cultivation of cashew. The intention to cultivate cashew was accepted by this Court in M.F.A.(Forest) No.445 of 1987. However, since the actual physical possession was not restored, the cultivation could not be continued. 5. On the evidence, the Tribunal found that the application schedule property satisfies the definition of 'ecologically fragile land' and ‘forest’ under Section 2 (b) and (c) of the EFL Act and accordingly, dismissed the Original Applications. 6. We have heard Shri.M.P. Madhavankutty, the learned counsel for the appellants in M.F.A.(Forest) Nos.125 and 136 of 2017. There is no appearance for the appellants in other appeals. 6. We have heard Shri.M.P. Madhavankutty, the learned counsel for the appellants in M.F.A.(Forest) Nos.125 and 136 of 2017. There is no appearance for the appellants in other appeals. We have also heard Shri.Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forests), on behalf of the respondents. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that, the Original Applications were filed by two co-sharers of the property for and on behalf of the other members of the family. There was a suit for partition in the family as O.S.No.102 of 2002. The final decree was passed in the suit on 20.02.2009. The appeal challenging the same as A.S.No.239 of 2009 was dismissed on 03.03.2014. Though the appellants in M.F.A. Nos.125 and 136 of 2017 had not preferred any original applications, they being co-sharers, are entitled to maintain the appeal, it is argued. 8. We do notice that this Court had granted leave to appeal pursuant to which M.F.A.(Forest) Nos.125 and 136 of 2017 were registered. There is no dispute before us that the appellants therein are also the sharers of the property. At the time when the Original Applications were filed, the suit for partition was pending. The appellants being co-sharers of the property, their appeals are liable to be considered on merits. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, merely for the reason that the property may presently satisfy the requirements of an ecologically fragile land, that by itself may not be sufficient to declare it to be so. Though going by the records the possession of the property was restored on 22.12.1997, it was only a paper delivery. There was no restoration of physical possession. It is also contended that, along with the order for restoration, the State had issued a notification under Section 5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act , thus prohibiting felling of trees. The proceedings under the Vesting Act were allowed under Section 3 (3) of the Vesting Act, upholding the applicants intention to cultivate. The notification under the prevented the applicants from cultivating the property. Pending such prohibition the EFL notification has published. Thus, the State having prevented the applicants from cultivating the property, cannot be heard to contend that the property has partaken the character of ecologically fragile land, it is contended. The notification under the prevented the applicants from cultivating the property. Pending such prohibition the EFL notification has published. Thus, the State having prevented the applicants from cultivating the property, cannot be heard to contend that the property has partaken the character of ecologically fragile land, it is contended. The decision in Kumari Varma v. State of Kerala [2011 (1) KLT 1008] has thus declared the law, he contended. Finally, he prayed for remanding the matter granting the appellants opportunity to adduce evidence in the original applications. 10. The contention that the restoration of possession was only on paper and the actual physical possession was not handed over, cannot be countenanced. As was noticed earlier, the restoration of possession was pursuant to a contempt proceedings before this Court. If the applicants had not got actual physical possession of the property, nothing prevented them from bringing it to the notice of this Court. No objection regarding failure to deliver actual physical possession is seen urged at any point of time till the filing of the original applications, before any forum or authority. Therefore, the said contention is only to be negatived. 11. On restoration of possession on 22.12.1997, the property was simultaneously notified under Section 5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act . The notification prohibits removing of any trees standing in a private forest. of the reads thus; “ 5. Prohibition of cutting of tree in notified areas .- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority, or in any agreement or other arrangement, the Government may, with a view to preserving the tree growth in private forest, or in the Cardamom Hills Reserve or in any other areas cultivated with cardamom, by notification in the Gazette, direct that no tree standing in any such area specified in the notification shall be cut, uprooted, burnt or otherwise destroyed except on the ground that- (a) the tree constitutes a danger to life or property; or (b) the tree is dead, diseased or windfallen: Provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall not be deemed to prevent the pruning of any tree as required by ordinary agricultural or horticultural practices. (2) No person shall, without the previous permission in writing of the authorised officer, cut, uproot, burn or otherwise destroy or cause to be cut, uprooted, burnt or otherwise destroyed any tree in any area specified in the notification under sub-section (1) on any of the grounds specified therein. Explanation I . - For the purposes of this section, the term “tree” shall include any species of tree. Explanation II .- For the purposes of sub-section (1), the expression “private forest” means any land which immediately before the 10 th day of May, 1971, was a private forest as defined in the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971.” The proceedings under the Vesting Act culminated in favour of the applicants. Their intention to cultivate the property, as provided under Section 3 (3) of the Vesting Act was upheld. The effect of such finding is that, though the property continues to be a 'private forest' under the Vesting Act, exemption is granted under Section 3 (3), recognizing the intention of the applicants to cultivate the property. Section 3(3) of the Vesting Act reads thus:- “S.3(3). Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply in respect of so much extent of private forests held by an owner under a valid registered document of title executed before the appointed day and intended for cultivation by him, which together with other lands held by him to which Chapter III of the Kerala Land Reforms Act , 1963, is applicable, does not exceed the extent of the ceiling area applicable to him under Section 82 of the said Act.” The contention of the appellants is that, to cultivate the property, the trees standing therein had to be removed, which was prevented by the notification under the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act . 12. Though the notification under Section 5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act prohibits removing of trees from the property, the proviso to (1) enables agricultural activities by pruning the trees. Therefore, having obtained restoration of the property, nothing prevented the applicants from having carry out agricultural operations by pruning the trees. Having not even attempted to do so, they cannot be heard to say that they were prevented from cultivating the property. 13. Therefore, having obtained restoration of the property, nothing prevented the applicants from having carry out agricultural operations by pruning the trees. Having not even attempted to do so, they cannot be heard to say that they were prevented from cultivating the property. 13. The above apart, if at all the applicants had a grievance that the notification under the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act operates against the order under the Vesting Act, they ought to have taken up the matter before the appropriate forum. Such a course was not resorted to. Having not adopted either of the courses, the contention that, consequent on the notification issued by the State, the applicants were prevented from cultivating the property, has no force. The decision in Kumari Varma (supra) does not come to their aid. 14. That, as on the appointed day, namely, 02.06.2000, the property in question satisfied the definition of 'ecologically fragile land', is beyond dispute. Ext.C2 Commissioner's reports describe about the forest growth in the property. Coupled with the same is Ext.A7 report of the Expert Committee. The relevant part of the report, which is of significance, reads thus:- “The OA property is part of the Dhoni hills and is of 90 acres in area. This by far is the largest EFL notified plot in Palakkad Forest Division. The area is fully covered with secondary growth of moist deciduous forest with an average of 40 percent density in the lower slopes and about 60% cover in the upper slopes. The area is surrounded on all three sides by vested forest and a stream forms the 4 th boundary. The vested forest portion adjoining OA property also consists of moist deciduous growth. Thus the entire hill slope is covered by reasonably dense growth of moist deciduous forest and the OA property is a part of that contiguous forest. Hence the area should be protected as such and committee recommends its continuation under 'Ecologically Fragile Land' notification.” Therefore, it appears that, as on the relevant date, the property was an 'ecologically fragile land', satisfying the ingredients of the definitions of 'Forest' and 'Ecologically Fragile Land' under Section 2 (b) and (c) respectively, of the EFL Act. The Tribunal was right in having held so. 15. Though the learned counsel for the appellants prayed for a remand, we are of the opinion that no purpose would be served by doing so. The Tribunal was right in having held so. 15. Though the learned counsel for the appellants prayed for a remand, we are of the opinion that no purpose would be served by doing so. The relevant factual aspects are available on record. Incidentally, we do also notice that, the appellants did not file original application nor get themselves impleaded in the Original Applications. Even these appeals were preferred by them only in the year 2017. They have been watching the proceedings from the gallery. None of the grounds prescribed under Order 43 Rules 23 or 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure, for a remand are made out. We do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. There is no merit in the appeals. The appeals fail and are dismissed. No costs.