by looking into the scheme of the Act, as well as the Tribunal Rules. As mentioned above, two remedies are open to a person who is aggrieved by the posture of the State that his land is an ecologically fragile land. It is explicit from Section 3 of the EFL Act 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, 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 with effect from the date of commencement of the EFL Act (i.e., 02.06.2000) and the right, title and interest of the owner or any other person thereon shall stand extinguished from the said date. Emphatic words employed in Section 3 of the EFL Act would clearly indicate that a statutory vesting had taken place in respect of all lands in the State, if it fulfils the definition of “ecologically fragile land” in Section 2(b). In otherwords, there is no need to await a notification to be published that a particular land is ecologically fragile land for vesting to happen. On a close reading of Section 10 of the EFL Act, it can be seen that whether a land is notified under the EFL Act or not, a person who claims that it is not an ecologically fragile land has a right to approach the Tribunal for settlement of dispute. On the other hand, recourse
