GOPI Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the time of the grant, the mandatory conditions as per the rules, had also been incorporated in the patta and condition No. 1 was that the wild trees, specifically referred to in the schedule, fully belong and all trees which were there and might erupt are to be properly preserved by the assignee.

(2.) THE petitioner points out that there were five trees so reserved. THE petitioner wanted to cut and remove the trees after remitting the tree value. An application as Ext. P1 had been submitted by him in this regard. Reference was made to one Thumbegom and four Chadachi trees. THE village Officer, Konnathady, by Ext. P3 dated 8. 11. 2001 reported to the tahsildar that there was a residential house in the property belonging to the petitioner as XI/320 and in the property there was a Thumbegom tree which was rotten and stunted and it was a danger to the house as also cultivations. He referred to the above as a reserved tree in the patta and also showed presence of three Chadachi trees as reserved. He recommended that the Thumbegom tree was having 280-cros. girth and 25 meters height at the time of conferment of patta and its present girth is 325 cros. and height 25 meters. He recommended that the above tree (alone) may be permitted to be cut and removed. Endorsing the report and recommending cutting and removal of Thumbegom tree, the Tahsildar had made a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer (2nd respondent ). However, it appears that the second respondent had thought it fit to make a local inspection. THE site inspection, according to him, revealed that the tree was not in any danger to the house and it was a very huge tree with a girth of 325 cros. and not susceptible to winds. Observing that this tree comes under the royal tree category and is very valuable and costing "lakhs of rupees" and since the petitioner was not rich enough to buy the tree at such a huge price and since his motives did not appear to be entirely proper, he recorded an opinion that there was no necessity for giving permission for cutting the tree. This order is under challenge.

(3.) THE question is as to whether it will be permissible for the petitioner to insist, as of right, the cutting and appropriation of the thumbegom tree, standing in the property that had been assigned to him. It cannot be disputed that trees have been reserved at the time of assignment and the Thumbegom tree is one of them. From a description and reference to its value, it appears to be extremely valuable. If the tree was standing, in a position dangerous to the petitioner's house and property, of course the revenue Divisional Officer was the most competent person to decide as to whether it has to be removed. THE fact finding authority, namely the R. D. O. has in categorical terms made an opinion that the tree is very sound and stubbornly positioned and there was no threat to the petitioner. THEre should have been an end of the matter, as this Court had no business to make any further probe.