RAJASEKHARAN NAIR Vs. ASST SETTLEMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P7 order and also seeking a direction to the 1st respondent "to realise the value of 52 trees standing in the property at the seigniorage rate in force at the time of assignment" to enable the petitioner to cut and remove the said 52 trees. As per the averment of the petitioner in Para.2 of the Original Petition, "for the purpose of clearing the land for effective cultivation, the petitioner decided to cut and remove the 52 trees standing in the property." He submitted an application. There was a report as seen from Ext. P1 recommending the same. The Forest Range Officer assessed the value of the trees as seen from Ext. P3. According to the petitioner, he is liable only to pay the seigniorage rate on the basis of Ext. P4 order and not the market rate and the value of the tree. He approached this Court with O.P. 2903/98 seeking a direction "to fix the value of 5 2 trees standing in the property of the petitioner in accordance with the rate specified in Ext. P4 Government order". This Court in Ext. P5 judgment pronounced at the admission stage of the Original Petition issued a direction to the Additional 3rd respondent in that Original Petition "to take a decision on the question regarding the liability of the petitioner to pay seigniorage taking into consideration all relevant factors to be highlighted in an application to be preferred by the petitioner". Based on the direction the petitioner submitted Ext. P6 before the Government. Government considered Ext. P6 with all the relevant materials and passed Ext. P7 rejecting the request of the petitioner for permission to cut and remove the 52 trees at the seigniorage rate.

(2.) The petitioner submits that Ext. P7 is illegal. Ext. P7 proceeds as if the prohibition contained in S.5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1985 is applicable to the land. The petitioner submits, as early as in 1963 the petitioner was granted permission to cultivate the land with coconut, pepper, rubber etc. From that year onwards, the property in question is not cultivated with Cardamom and therefore, it is not a Cardamom land to attract the provisions of S.5. Even though the land was assigned in terms of the Cardamom Registry Rules, for removal of trees the rate specified in Ext. P4 alone is applicable, ie. at the seigniorage rate prevalent at the time of assignment. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to an order to allow him to cut and remove the trees by paying the seigniorage rate. When the land is not thus cultivated with Cardamom, the prohibition contained in S.5 is not at all applicable to the land, the petitioner submits. Ext. P7 thus proceeds in a wrong premises.

(3.) It is submitted by the Government Pleader that when the Cardamom Registry Rules are applicable, the petitioner cannot cultivate the land with any other crop and it will violate the conditions of assignment which shall result in resuming the land. No tree is liable to be cut and removed in a cardamom area without permission and in such case double the value of the trees is liable to be paid by the owner of the property. Moreover, S.5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act is applicable. Therefore, the petitioner is not at all entitled to cut and remove any tree.