same Tribunal in O.A.Nos.11, 12 and 13 of 2008. The said Original Applications were allowed by Ext.A5 judgment holding that the lands involved therein are not ecologically fragile lands and directing restoration of lands to the applicants therein. It is to be noted that the land covered by Ext. A5 is also part of the land covered by O.A.No.607 of 1974. The Tribunal also noticed that the boundaries shown in Ext. B1 notification itself in respect of the lands in O.A.No.3 of 2011 are restored lands in O.A.No.607 of 1974. As such, the appellants themselves did not have a case that the lands in O.A.No.3 of 2011 are lying contiguous to or surrounded by forest land. Considering the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the Tribunal held that the scheduled lands are not lying contiguous to vested forests or reserve forest and therefore, would not come under the definition of the term ecologically fragile land as defined by the EFL Act. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that in coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal has also placed reliance on the earlier judgment under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 i.e., judgments of the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad in O.A.No.607 of 1974 and of this court M.F.A. No. 368 of 1998. This, according to the counsel, is completely unjustified and erroneous in view of the provisions of the 2003 Act. It was brought to our notice that section 3(1) of the EFL Act overides not only the earlier enactments but all judgments rendered by Forest Tribunal, the High Court as well as the
