JUDGMENT : EASWARAN S., J. 1. State of Kerala has come up in this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2023 in AS No.71/2008 of the Sub Court, Nedumangad, which reversed the dismissal of OS No.85/2007 by the Principal Munsiff’s Court, Nedumangad. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The plaintiff instituted the suit initially for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellants/defendants (State) from obstructing the right to use the plaint C schedule pathway or closing the C schedule pathway. A schedule property is in possession of the plaintiff, who is admittedly a trespasser. However, the possession of the plaintiff was recognized under the relevant Rules and certificate of possession was issued on 31.8.1989. The plaintiff claimed that he was using plaint C schedule pathway to enter into A schedule property. C schedule pathway passes through the reserved forest which is scheduled as B schedule. According to the plaintiff, on 08.02.2007, the officers of the Forest Department had dug certain trenches in C schedule pathway to disrupt the peaceful enjoyment of the plaintiff’s right of way through C schedule pathway to A schedule property. Hence, the suit, which was amended on 15.2.2008 incorporating the prayer for mandatory injunction for a direction to the defendants to restore ‘C’ schedule into its original position or to allow the plaintiff to restore C schedule pathway and to recover the cost from the defendants, along with some additional grounds. The defendants resisted the suit by primarily contending that the plaintiff has no right of easement by prescription over the property of the Government. It was further contended that the permission to use the forest land for non-forestry purpose will be in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and that the plaintiff’s property is not an enclosure inside the reserved forest, but a continuous piece of agricultural land lying continuously with the revenue land. Later, during the stage of evidence, the defendants produced a letter dated 21.8.2006 (Ext.B1) written by the plaintiff requesting the Forest Range Officer, Agasthyavanam to grant permission to access C schedule property. Therefore, the stand of the defendants was that even assuming that a right of prescription was available, the same stood lost because of the clear admission in Ext.B1 that the plaintiff was not using the pathway for nearly 25 years. Therefore, the stand of the defendants was that even assuming that a right of prescription was available, the same stood lost because of the clear admission in Ext.B1 that the plaintiff was not using the pathway for nearly 25 years. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A5 documents were marked and PW1 to PW3 were examined. On behalf of defendants, Ext.B1 was marked and DW1 was examined. The trial court based on oral and documentary evidence concluded that the ingredients of Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 are not met and that there is discontinuation of the use of land and therefore the plaintiff is disabled from asserting his right under of the said Act. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred AS No.71/2008 which was allowed by the Sub Court, Nedumangad by judgment dated 21.02.2023 on the ground that Ext.B1 neither obliterates the right of the plaintiff to use C schedule pathway nor gives an indication of discontinuation of the right of use of C schedule pathway. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed. 3. On 29.08.2024, this Court admitted the appeal on the substantial questions of law c) and d) framed in the appeal, which read as under: “c) Whether easement by prescription is available in the forest land in the light of provisions of Section 16 , Section20 and Section 22 of the Forest Act? d) Whether any right can be acquired over forest land by way of declaration by the Civil Court without following the procedure prescribed in the Forest Act and the Forest Conservation Act for acquiring the said right?” 4. Heard Sri.T.P.Sajan, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forests) appearing for the appellants/defendants and Sri.M.P.Madhavankutty, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff. 5. Sri.T.P.Sajan, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forests) appearing for the appellants, contended that in terms of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 , any permission to be granted over the reserved forests must be strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed by the Central Government and that the State Government has no power to grant such permission. Section 2 of the would give an indication that the right of easement by prescription over a forest land is not available. Section 2 of the would give an indication that the right of easement by prescription over a forest land is not available. Even otherwise, it is pointed out that Sections 16 , 20 and 22 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 would give a fair indication that no right of easement by prescription can be claimed over reserved forests. Even assuming for argument’s sake such right can be claimed, according to Sri.T.P.Sajan, such right in the present case has been abandoned by the plaintiff, which is evident from Ext.B1 letter. Placing heavy reliance on the contents of Ext.B1 letter, the learned counsel pointed out that there is a clear and unequivocal admission on the part of the plaintiff that he had left the plaint A Schedule property 25 years ago and that he has not been using the same, and that precisely is the reason why permission was sought for. The date of issuance of the letter would clearly indicate that the cause of action pleaded in the suit as 08.02.2007 is clearly false and that only when an attempt was made by the plaintiff to cut and remove certain trees standing in B schedule property, the Forest Officials had intervened. 6. Per contra, Sri.M.P.Madhavankutty, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff, supported the findings rendered by the first appellate court and contended that the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 , which enacted only in the year 1980, cannot be applied in the present case because the possession of the plaintiff is recognized from the year 1977. He further pointed out that there is no alternate way to enter the plaint A schedule property. Still further, he pointed out that Explanation-II to Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act is attracted in the present case and therefore, unless the conditions are satisfied, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited. He further pointed out that the contents of Ext.B1 cannot obliterate the right of the plaintiff from using C schedule property. The right of the plaintiff having been recognized under Ext.A1, the same cannot be rendered otiose by the refusal of the appellants to grant permission or recognize the right of prescriptive right of easement in favour of the plaintiff. 7. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the bar, perused the judgments rendered by the courts below and the records of the case. 8. 7. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the bar, perused the judgments rendered by the courts below and the records of the case. 8. The primary question to be considered is whether the plaintiff can claim the right of easement over forest land. To consider this issue, one must bear in mind certain provisions of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 . Section 4 deals with notification of reserved forest. Once the notification is issued the same requires to be published in gazette under Section 6 . Thereafter a series of procedures are prescribed under the Act until it culminates in a notification under Section 19 . It is worthwhile to note that Section 16 of the prescribes execution of an agreement regarding the right of way. Section 16 reads as under: “ 16. Claims to rights of way, etc.- When the claim admitted relates to a right of way or to a water course, or to a use of water, the Government shall either come to an agreement with the claimant for the surrender of the right or pass an order admitting such right and providing for the exercise of such right.” The reading of the afore provision shows that a person claiming right over the way is obliged to alert the authorities and have the right recognised under law. Section 18 further provides for commutation of rights. At the culmination of such procedure, a notification under Section 19 of the Act is issued. Once the notification is issued, all rights not known to the government and not known by inquiry get extinguished under Section 20 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 . 9. A cumulative reading of these provisions makes it clear that any right of way over forest land cannot be enforced unless it is recognised through an agreement under Section 16 . View taken by this Court finds support from an unreported judgment of a Single Bench of this Court in State of Kerala Vs. P.M. Joseph, 2010 KER 16485 [S.A No. 402/1996 dated 18-5-2010]. 10. An incidental question may arise. Can Kerala Forest Act, 1961 restrict any right claimed under the Indian Easements Act, 1882 ? While Section 15 of the Easements Act recognizes an easement by prescription, a claim can succeed only if the claimant establishes a lawful right over another’s property. P.M. Joseph, 2010 KER 16485 [S.A No. 402/1996 dated 18-5-2010]. 10. An incidental question may arise. Can Kerala Forest Act, 1961 restrict any right claimed under the Indian Easements Act, 1882 ? While Section 15 of the Easements Act recognizes an easement by prescription, a claim can succeed only if the claimant establishes a lawful right over another’s property. In the case of Government land, particularly reserved forest, no individual right can be recognised disregarding the restrictions imposed by the. Therefore, this Court holds that when a right of way is claimed through a reserved forest, the right can only be subject to the provisions of the. Accordingly, first substantial question of law [No.c)] is answered in favour of the appellant-State. 11. Next, it is to be considered whether the plaintiff has established any right of easement. In order to sustain his claim, the plaintiff must not only establish the right of easement but also must prove that the stipulations under the Forest Act have been complied with in order to assert his right over the way. 12. Existence of ‘C’ Schedule pathway is not under dispute. However, the appellants assert before this Court that right, if any, has been lost or abandoned and Ext.B1 letter conclusively prove the same. A reading of Ext.B1 letter would show that the plaintiff had categorically admitted as early as in the year 2006 that he had left the plaint A Schedule property 25 years ago and that C schedule property/pathway is now covered with trees and shrubs and become unusable, and therefore sought permission of the Forest Range Officer, Agasthyavanam to permit the plaintiff to clear the obstructions and to use the C schedule pathway. When the contents of Ext.B1 letter is read as a whole, it is evident that the plaintiff had categorically admitted that he had discontinued to use the C schedule pathway when he left the plaint A schedule property 25 years ago, and that thereafter he wanted to come back and construct a house in A schedule property and reside there. 13. If, as a matter of fact, the plaintiff had entertained the belief that he is entitled to use C schedule property as a matter of right, then he need not have sought permission of the Forest Range Officer to use C schedule pathway. 13. If, as a matter of fact, the plaintiff had entertained the belief that he is entitled to use C schedule property as a matter of right, then he need not have sought permission of the Forest Range Officer to use C schedule pathway. Moreover, the evidence adduced by the plaintiff in this case, is completely silent with regard to compliance with the requirements of Section 16 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 . In such circumstances, it is inevitable for this Court to hold that the plaintiff has failed to establish his right over ‘C’ schedule property, and even if he had such right the same has been lost by efflux of time, since a clear case of abandonment is made out. 14. Yet another issue raised by Sri.T.P Sajan, the Special Government Pleader (Forests) is that C schedule pathway passes through B schedule reserved forest and that without complying with the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 , no right to use the pathway can be claimed. This Court feels that the said question is only incidental. Once this Court has held that no claim to use the pathway under a reserved forest can be made otherwise than under Section 16 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 , the application of the provisions of the does not arise for consideration. But for the sake of completion, this issue is also discussed especially in view of Ext.B1 letter. 15. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was promulgated to provide for conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto. Section 2 of the, provides that if a reserved forest is to be used for non-forest purposes, it must be preceded by the prior approval of the Central Government and that the State Government cannot permit any person to use the reserved forest for non-forest purposes unless so permitted. This is precisely the reason why the plaintiff sent Ext.B1 letter to the Forest Range Officer seeking permission. 16. This is precisely the reason why the plaintiff sent Ext.B1 letter to the Forest Range Officer seeking permission. 16. As regards the contention of Sri M.P.Madhavankutty, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff that, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 cannot apply to the present case since the plaintiff had been enjoying the right to use C schedule pathway right from its inception, this Court finds it difficult to accept the said plea for multiple reasons; (a) The possession of the plaintiff is in continuation of the possession of his predecessor. The report of the Commissioner shows that the adjacent property to A schedule is that of the plaintiff’s father. This leads to an inference that the plaintiff was never using C schedule pathway which passes through the reserved forest and that the entry of the plaintiff to A schedule property was through his adjacent property; (b) It has come out in evidence that the property of the plaintiff’s father adjacent to the plaintiff’s property has got an alternate way and that C schedule property is not the sole pathway through which access to A schedule property is made; and (c) The plaintiff failed to show that he had entered into an agreement under Section 16 of Kerala Forest Act, 1961 to use ‘C’ Schedule pathway. Thus, the request, if any, under Ext.B1 can be entertained only in terms of the provisions contained under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. 17. Albeit, once this Court has concluded that the right of easement by prescription is not available through a forest land unless otherwise provided under Section 16 of Kerala Forest Act, 1961 , then necessarily, the right to use a way which passes through the reserved forest can only be in terms of the conditions specified under the provisions of the and, hence, there cannot be any unilateral declaration of right by the civil court without following the procedure prescribed under the. Accordingly, the second substantial question of law [No.d)] is answered in favour of the appellants and against the respondent/plaintiff. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to succeed. Consequently, the appeal is allowed by reversing the judgment and decree dated 21.2.2023 in AS No.71/2008 of the Sub Court, Nedumangad and restoring the judgment and decree dated 8.8.2008 in OS No.85/2007 of the Principal Munsiff’s Court, Nedumangad. The dismissal of OS No.85/2007 is thus affirmed. No order as to costs.