A.V.ABDUL GAFOOR Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are stated to be absolute owners in possession of 350 acres of plantation, which is known as Aarthala Estate, comprised in Block No.156, Sy.No.134 of Kerala Estate Village in Nilambur Taluk, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a declaration that no permission from respondents 1 to 3, namely, the Divisional Forest Officer, Nilambur; the Forest Range Officer, Vandoor Range; and the Deputy Forest Officer, Kaalikavu Forest Range, is necessary for the purpose of cutting, loading and transporting reeds from 350 acres of plantation, namely, Aarthala Estate. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction interdicting respondents 1 to 3 and their subordinates from interfering with the cutting, loading and transportation of reeds from Aarthala Estate owned and possessed by the petitioners, covered by Ext.P2 series of basic tax receipts; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to pass orders on Ext.P1 representation dated 26.08.2020, without any further delay; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to forthwith pay an amount of Rs.70,000/- to the petitioners, towards the loss suffered by them on account of illegal interception of lorry bearing registration No.KL- 50/3059, on 17.08.2020; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 4 to 6 to afford adequate and meaningful protection to the petitioners, the auction purchaser and also the workers engaged in cutting, loading and transporting from Aarthala Estate, covered by Ext.P2 series of basic tax receipts, without being interfered with in any manner, either by respondents 7 and 8 or their men; and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 4 to 6, namely, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Malappuram, the Circle Inspector of Police, Karuvarakundu and the Sub Inspector of Police, Karuvarakundu, to pass orders on Ext.P3 petition dated 31.08.2020, without any delay.

(2.) Going by the averments in the writ petition, within the limits of Aarthala Estate, there are large quantities of reeds. The same was being auctioned annually and the auction purchaser has been regularly cutting and transporting reeds without any interruption. Since reeds are not a forest produce, as defined under the Kerala Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1975, no permission from respondents 1 to 3 is required for cutting and transporting reeds from the registered holdings/estate of the petitioners. This year also ripened reeds were auctioned for being cut and removed. On 17.08.2020, the auction purchaser was removing one lorry load of reeds, respondents 2 and 3 intercepted the lorry bearing registration No.KL-50/3059 and insisted that the reeds must be unloaded, least they would seize the lorry as well. The workers of the auction purchaser unloaded reeds from the lorry, which is lying exposed to sun and rain ever since 17.08.2020, which has become completely useless. The value of one lorry load of reeds comes to Rs.50,000/-. Apart from this, towards loading and unloading charges, the auction purchaser has to incur an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.22,000/- towards loading and Rs.8,000/- towards unloading). The petitioners will have to reimburse the said amount to the auction purchaser. On account of the aforesaid action of respondents 2 and 3, the petitioners were constrained to abruptly stop the cutting and removal of the auctioned reeds, and the auction purchaser is likely to claim damages from the petitioners. Since reeds are ripe for being cut and removed, the petitioners cannot afford to wait any further. Apprehending that respondents 2 and 3 may again intercept the lorry transporting reeds, the 1st petitioner submitted Ext.P1 petition dated 26.08.2020 before the 1st respondent Divisional Forest Officer, with copy to respondents 2 and 3. Though the 1 st respondent has acknowledged the receipt of Ext.P1, he has not even chosen to enquire about the correctness or otherwise of the allegations contained therein. Relying on the provisions under the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 and also the Kerala Forest Produce Transit Rules, the petitioners would contend that, reeds cut and removed from their registered holdings covered by Ext.P2 series of basic tax receipts, having a total extent of 350 acres, would not be a forest produce, either under the provisions of the said Act or the said Rules.

(3.) In the writ petition it is alleged that, respondents 7 and 8 are instrumental for persuading the forest officials, namely, respondents 2 and 3, to interfere with the transporting of reeds cut and removed from the petitioners registered holdings. Respondents 7 and 8 have already decided to somehow or otherwise prevent the cutting and transportation of reeds, even if the forest officials are persuaded to permit the petitioners to cut and transport reeds from their estate. The attempt of respondents 7 and 8 is to hold the petitioners for ransom and thus make profit from the aforesaid illegal activity. In such circumstances, the 1 st petitioner submitted Ext.P3 petition dated 31.08.2020 before the 4 th respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police, with copy to respondents 5 and 6, pointing out the attempt on the part of respondents 7 and 8, and requesting for adequate and effective police protection to the petitioners, the auction purchaser and also the workers involved in cutting, loading and transporting ripened reeds from Aarthala Estate, from being interfered with in any fashion by respondents 7 and 8 or their men. As evidenced by Exts.P4 and P5 receipts, respondents 4 to 6 have already acknowledged the receipt of Ext.P3 petition. According to the petitioners, after the receipt of Ext.P3 petition, respondents 5 and 6 expressed their inability to intervene in the matter on account of political cloud wheeled by respondents 7 and 8. In such circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court in this writ petition seeking the reliefs stated hereinbefore.