Kerala High Court
P.M.Jalal Aged 45 Years vs Divisional Forest Officer on 16 October, 2015
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2016/13TH PHALGUNA, 1937
RP.No. 1154 of 2015 () IN CRP.122/2013
----------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRP 122/2013 of HIGH COURT OF
KERALA DATED 16-10-2015
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:
------------------------------
1. P.M.JALAL AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED, VARIKKATTU HOUSE, NELLIKKUZHA P.O.
ERAMALLOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686691.
2. BIJU AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, PULLIPARAMBIL, KOOVAPPARA P.O.
KUTTAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686669.
BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
------------------------
1. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
MALAYATTOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683587.
2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER
KUTTAMPUZHA FOREST RANGE OFFICE, KUTTAMPUZHA
ERNAKULAM-686691.
3. THE DEPUTY RANGER
POOYAMKUTTY FOREST STATION, POOYAMKUTTY
KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686691.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER: SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.12.2015,
THE COURT ON 03.03.2016 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
=================
R.P.No.1154 of 2015
in
C.R.P.No.122 of 2013
=================
Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2016
ORDER
The respondents in the revision petition seeks review of the order in the CRP, by which, it was held that in relation to trees standing on a land covered by a pattayam issued under the Kerala Land Assignment (Regularization of Occupation of Forest Lands prior to 1.1.1977) Special Rules 1993, even if Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 may not apply, still it would be governed by the Kerala Forest (Prohibition of Felling of Trees Standing in Lands Temporarily or Permanently Assigned) Rules 1995. The above finding is sought to be reviewed on a premise that the finding was overlooking the provisions of Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act 2005 and without noticing the relevant provisions of the relevant Statutes as are applicable.
2. The learned senior counsel canvassed for the position that under the above Act of 2005, the right of the owners to cut and remove trees was restricted to trees standing in any of the lands notified under Section 5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees R.P.1154/15 in C.R.P.122/13 2 Act, 1986. It was contended that the said act permitted cutting of non-forest trees not covered by Preservation of Trees Act. It was further contended that Penal provisions can emanate only from an enactment and not by implication. Yet another contention was that in the light of definition of land as provided under the Special Rules 1993 and that in Kerala Forest Act, it would not extend to a pattayam land. Placing reliance on decision in Chacko Pyli and Others v. State of Kerala (1966 KHC 21), it was contended that the Forest Act and Rules framed thereunder applies to Forest lands and lands notified. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader for the forest relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others (AIR 1997 SC 1228) to contend that the word forest should be understood as per its dictionary meaning.
3. This Court in the order sought to be reviewed had held that Preservation of Trees Act do not apply to the trees involved herein. However, such trees, which are mentioned in the pattayam and standing in a land which was once forest land but assigned to the holder by Special Rules 1993, the Kerala Forest (Prohibition of Felling of Trees Standing on Land Temporarily or Permanently assigned) Rules 1995 would also operate. It was also R.P.1154/15 in C.R.P.122/13 3 noticed that, the said Rules were promulgated under Section 30(c) and Section 76(f) and (g) of the Kerala Forest Act. In the light of the above, none of the above arguments of the learned senior counsel for the review petitioners would survive.
4. Yet another contention of the learned senior counsel was that the Special Rules 1993 have been framed under Section 7 of the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960 and the Rules provide for the form of assignment and in the light of it, "trees" as defined under Section 2(c) of the Preservation of Trees Act alone can be included in the assignment and patta. This contention has no statutory backing.
The various grounds urged do not satisfy the grounds for review. The petition is hence without any merit and is dismissed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS Judge Sbna/26/2/16 True Copy P A to Judge