TOMY THOMAS Vs. CONSERVATOR OF FOREST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the owner in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 39.96 ares of land assigned to him as per Ext.P1 assignment and Ext.P2 patta, seeking to quash Exts.P9 and P10 in so far as it fixed the value of the timber, and Ext.P11 as illegal and violative of the provisions of the Preservation of Trees Act, 1986, the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 and the Kerala Forest (Preservation, Reproduction and Disposal of Trees and Timber belonging to Government But Grown on Lands in the Occupation of Private Persons) Rules, 1975, and for other consequential and allied reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid land, in which, allegedly there was a teak tree which was dead and damaged, standing near to the residential building in the aforesaid property, causing danger to his life and property. Petitioner, therefore, requested to cut and remove the tree and permission was granted under the Disaster Management Act, and accordingly, the tree was cut and the same is lying in the property.

(3.) Thereafter, petitioner made an application before the respondents requesting to make use of the timber for the purpose of house construction. However, a decision was not taken. Thereupon, petitioner filed petition under the Right to Information Act in respect of the steps taken on his application. Thereafter, petitioner was served with Exts.P9 to P11. Exts.P7 and P8 are the applications submitted by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent. Ext.P9 is the report of the 3rd respondent submitted to the 2nd respondent, in which the 3rd respondent has recommended to give the teak wood to the petitioner, but fixing an exorbitant value. Ext.P10 is a communication between 1st and 2nd respondents recommending to sell the timber to the petitioner. However, Ext.P11 direction is issued by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent, directing the 2nd respondent to remove the timber to Parampuzha Forest Depot. According to the petitioner, such an order is passed without hearing the petitioner, and therefore, the same is violative of the principles of natural justice. Petitioner has also sought a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to appropriate the timber for his own purpose, without paying any tree value, as he is the absolute owner in possession of the property covered by Exts.P1 and P2. An alternative relief is also sought for, directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on Exts.P7 and P8 applications in accordance with law, and allow the petitioner to appropriate the teak wood lying in the property of the petitioner on payment of seigniorage rate as notified by the Government of Kerala.