KOYAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition alleging that respondents 4 to 6 are obstructing cutting of trees as permitted under Ext.P3. The petitioner produced Ext.P7, which is a communication issued by a Samrakshana Samithy alleging that when common man is not allowed to cut trees from his own property, the Government cannot be permitted to cut and remove trees and sell it outside the State.

(2.) The petitioner contends that he has been granted a contract for cutting trees as permitted in Ext.P1, an Acceptance Letter and then an agreement, Ext.P2 was entered into on the auction being confirmed in the petitioner's name. The petitioner has also paid the amounts pursuant to the agreement as per Ext.P4. The petitioner contends that he has the right to cut and remove the trees as granted by the Social Forestry Department as per Ext.P1. The trees are said to be existing in the property of the Kerala Livestock Development Board.

(3.) Respondents 4 to 6 appeared through Counsel and the 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The learned Counsel would point to Ext.P9 to contend that, as of now, only 659 trees are to be cut and removed, and that the entire trees as permitted in Ext.P1 have already been cut and removed and there is no reason for a further exercise of cutting. It is also submitted that when the Forest Department has put unreasonable restrictions for cutting of trees from private properties, the State and its departments have been carrying on such cutting indiscriminately and without any concern for the laws. There is an agitation commenced and continued against the arbitrary action of the Forest officials in booking cases against local people for cutting trees; even those for which no permission is required. It is also argued that the extent in the possession of the 3rd respondent are areas coming within the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971; which are to be assigned to landless agriculturists. It is further urged that the planting of Eucalyptus is not an approved object of the 3rd respondent.