Kerala High Court
Tomy Thomas vs The Conservator Of Forest (Full ... on 2 March, 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1940
WP(C).No. 33477 of 2015
PETITIONER:
TOMY THOMAS,
HARAKKAT HOUSE, BATHAL P.O.,
MEDUCHINNAR, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY SRI.RAJU JOSEPH,SENIOR ADVOCATE
ADVS.SRI.K.T.POULOSE (KORATTY)
SRI.C.JOSEPH ANTONY
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (FULL ADDITIONAL CHARGE),
HIGH RANGE CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM-686 002.
2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
KOTTAYAM-686 002.
3. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
KUMALI, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 509.
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
OFFICE OF TAHSILDAR, UDUMBANCHOLA,
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 551.
5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KALKOOTHANL VILLAGE, NEDUNKANDAM,
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 553.
R1 TO R5 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FOREST) SRI.SANDESH RAJA.K.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21-06-2018, THE COURT ON 29-06-2018 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
29/6/2018
WP(C).No. 33477 of 2015 (H)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT OF REGISTRY.
EXT.P2 : COP OF THE PATTA ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SPECIAL
TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, NEDUNGANDAM.
EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 2.3.2015.
EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER.
EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE PERFORMA REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO
THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 20.4.2015.
EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TAHSILDAR TO REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER, DEVIKULAM DATED 30.4.2015.
EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 6.7.2015.
EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 31.7.2015.
EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 28.7.2015.
EXT.P10: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 26.9.2015.
EXT.P11: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
sts
29/6/2018
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.33477 of 2015
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2018
JUDGMENT
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 W.P.(C) No.33477 of 2015 2 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 W.P.(C) No.33477 of 2015 3 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.
4. A statement is filed by the 1st respondent, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions, it is submitted that, the very first condition of the patta provides that b