LAWS(KER)-2023-2-173

JOSHY JACOB KAIPPANPLAKAL Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

Decided On February 17, 2023
Joshy Jacob Kaippanplakal Appellant
V/S
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject issue raised in the writ petition arises under the Land Assignment (Regularization of Occupations of Forest Lands prior to 1/1/1977) Special Rules, 1993 ('Special Rules, 1993' for short), the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 ('Act, 1986' for short) and other Forest Laws, which would be deliberated hereafter.

(2.) The material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are summarised as follows: The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of 1 Hectare 41 Ares and 65 Sq. meters of land comprised in Re-Sy. Block 3, Field No. 386 of Vannappuram Village, Idukki District. He is represented by his power of attorney. According to the petitioner, his father was assigned with the said land as per Exhibit P2 patta No. 867/2001 issued by the Special Tahsildar, Land Assignment, Karimannoor, for the purpose of cultivation of rubber trees. Petitioner's father settled the property in his favour as per Exhibit P3 settlement deed No.956/2014 of the office of the Sub Registrar, Karikkode along with trees standing in the property. According to the petitioner, the rubber trees have become dead from tapping and the same has to be re-planted. It is submitted that there are a few trees grown subsequent to the assignment of the land by the Government and the rubber trees can be re-planted only if other trees are cut and removed along with the rubber trees.

(3.) It is also submitted that the Divisional Forest Officer, Kothamangalam Division, Ernakulam District and the Forest Range Officer, Thodupuzha Range, Idukki District, respondent Nos 1 and 2 are obstructing the cut and removal of other trees standing in the property; and even though petitioner has submitted Exhibits P5 and P6 representations before the Village Officer, Vannappuram Village and the Divisional Forest Officer, Kothamangalam Division, respondent Nos. 3 and 1 respectively, no action is initiated for granting permission to the petitioner to cut and remove the said trees.