KAMMUKKUTTY HAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an owner of large extent of forest lands in Calicut District. The Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) would admittedly apply to these lands. S.3 of the Act reads as follows:

(2.) In April 1968, the petitioner made an application to the second respondent, the District Collector, Calicut to grant him permission under S.3(2) of the Act to fell and remove 570 selected and marked trees from an area of 150 acres of forest land belonging to him. That application was affixed with a court fee label for the value of Rs. 10/- as required by R.6 as it stood before its amendment. The application was returned, by the second respondent, stating that under the Rules as amended by the aforesaid notification, the application had to be affixed with a court fee label at the rate of Rs. 20/- per acre. The reference is obviously to R.19. Being aggrieved by the refusal of the second respondent to consider the petitioner's application on the above ground, the petitioner has filed this Original Petition for a declaration that S.3(2) of the Act is illegal and unconstitutional, and that R.19 of the Rules is void and ultra vires of S.10 of the Act, and in the alternative to direct the second respondent to treat the petitioner's application made under S.3(2) of the Act as valid and dispose of it in accordance with law.

(3.) S.3(2) of the Act is attacked on the ground that it is violative of petitioner's fundamental right under Art.19(1)(f) of the Constitution to acquire, hold and dispose of property. This right is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public. The preamble of the Act shows that it is a law, made for preventing the indiscriminate destruction of private forests and interference with customary and prescriptive rights therein, and for certain other purposes. The restriction imposed under S.3(2) is not absolute. It is regulatory in character and it is a necessary measure for preventing the indiscriminate destruction of private forests. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the restriction, contained in S.3(2) is a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public. The attack made by the petitioner against the constitutional validity of the said provision has therefore, no substance.