Easement by prescription cannot be claimed over reserved forest land absent recognition under the Forest Act.

The Respondent (Plaintiff), a recognized trespasser in possession of 'A' schedule property since 1989, filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the State (Appellants).

He claimed a prescriptive right of easement over 'C' schedule pathway, which passes through 'B' schedule—a reserved forest—to access his property.

In 2007, Forest officials dug trenches to block the path.

The State resisted, arguing that forest land cannot be subject to prescriptive easements and produced a 2006 letter (Ext.B1) where the Plaintiff admitted to not using the land for 25 years.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit; however, the First Appellate Court reversed this, leading to the present Second Appeal.

1. Whether easement by prescription is available in forest land in light of the provisions of Sections 16, 20, and 22 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961?

2. Whether any right can be acquired over forest land by way of declaration by a Civil Court without following the procedure prescribed in the Forest Act and the Forest Conservation Act?

Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, regarding the acquisition of easement by prescription.

Sections 16, 19, and 20 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, which mandate that claims to rights of way in proposed reserved forests must be settled by agreement or official order, failing which such rights are extinguished upon notification.

Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which prohibits the use of forest land for non-forest purposes without prior approval from the Central Government.

The principle established in State of Kerala v. P.M. Joseph (2010:KER:16485) regarding the exclusion of prescriptive rights over forest land.

The Court reasoned that the Kerala Forest Act provides a specific statutory mechanism for recognizing rights of way; under Section 16, any person claiming such a right must have it recognized via an agreement with the Government.

Because the Plaintiff failed to establish any such agreement or recognition during the forest reservation process, any purported rights were extinguished under Section 20.

The Court held that individual rights claimed under the Easements Act cannot override the specialized restrictions of the Forest Act.

The Court analyzed Ext.B1, finding it a "clear and unequivocal admission" of abandonment, as the Plaintiff admitted to leaving the property 25 years prior and requested permission to clear the path, which is inconsistent with a claim of continuous prescriptive use.

The Court noted that permitting such a pathway without Central Government approval would violate Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the First Appellate Court's judgment, and restored the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit.

The prayer for injunction was denied as the Plaintiff failed to prove a lawful right of way and had effectively abandoned the use.