MANOJ Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges Ext. P8 an order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, rejecting the petitioner's request for cutting and removing rosewood trees in the land assigned to him by the Government on the ground that as per Condition No. 1 of the patta, the full right of all the trees vests in the Government which are also subsequently found in the property. The facts as disclosed would show that the petitioner's father was assigned an extent of 3 acres 35 cents of land as per Ext. P1 patta. By virtue of partition, it is said that this property was allotted in the name of the petitioner. There were four rose wood trees in the property of which two were in a dangerous situation and the other two were cut and removed to raise funds for repayment of the liabilities of the petitioner. He made a request to the 4th respondent Tahsildar seeking permission to cut and remove the said four rosewood trees. The 4th respondent by Ext. P6 reported about the nature of the trees standing in the property and opined that the said trees had not been reserved. The matter was therefore, placed before the Forest Range Officer, Adimali. Ext. P7 is the report by the Section Forester to the Range Officer. After verification of the same he stated that the four rosewood trees are not reserved and the matter was placed before the Division Forest Officer, who thereafter passed Ext. P8 order.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that the reasons stated in Ext. P8 is absolutely baseless. There is no reference to any reservation of trees in Ext. P1 as the Schedule would show that there were no teak, black wood, ebony or sandalwood trees in the land at the time of assignment. According to petitioner, condition No. 1 of Ext. P1 pattayam cannot be relied upon to contend that the trees that subsequently came into existence also would be reserved. That apart, even though there is such a provision in the condition, on the enactment of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non Forest Areas Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as the 'KPTG Act'), the conditions may not have any relevance and the provisions of the said Act will have to be followed for the purpose of cutting and removing four rosewood trees from the property.

(3.) Counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent supporting the stand taken in Ext. P8 order. It is stated that in so far as Ext. P8 is issued on the basis of condition No. 1 of the Pattayam, petitioner cannot claim any better rights.