Kerala High Court
M.M. Mathew vs The Forest Range Officer on 25 May, 2011
Author: P.N.Ravindran
Bench: P.N.Ravindran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2012/2ND JYAISHTA 1934
WP(C).No. 27360 of 2011 (T)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
M.M. MATHEW,
S/O. MATHEW, AGED 52 YEARS, ANATHARAKKAL HOUSE,
PUTTADI.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.JAI GEORGE
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER,
KUMILY.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 509.
* ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED:
* ADDL. R2. TAHSILDAR,
UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK- 685 602
* (ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 14.11.2011
IN I.A. 17871/11).
R1 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY (FORESTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
23-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 27360 of 2011
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2548/1/2011 DATED 25.5.2011 OF SUB
TREASURY OFFICE, KATTAPPANA.
EXT.P2: COPY OF PATTA NO.3154 DATED 25.4.1974 BY THE SPECIAL
TAHSILDAR, PEERMADE.
EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23.6.2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
VILLAGE OFFICER, ANAKKARA.
EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 25.5.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR.
EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 1.7.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE TAHSILDAR
BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.23627/2011 DATED
31.8.2011.
EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.10.2011.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-R(a): COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 11.8.1897 ISSUED BY THE
DEWAN OF TRAVANCORE.
ANNEXURE-R(b): COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION VOL.XXXII DT.14.5.1987.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
VPV
P.N.RAVINDRAN,J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.27360 of 2011
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2012
JUDGMENT
Ext.P8 order dated 4.10.2011 issued by the first respondent rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for permission to cut and remove trees from his lands, more particularly described in Ext.P1 sale deed and Ext.P2 patta is under challenge in this writ petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
2. The petitioner is the owner of a parcel of land 1.98 acres in extent, situated in R.Sy.No.110/5 of Anakkara Village in Udumbanchola Taluk, Idukki District. He purchased the property as per Ext.P1 sale deed dated 25.5.2011. The property formerly belonged to Sri.Raman Pilla Gopalan, who obtained it pursuant to an assignment in his favour under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. The application submitted by the petitioner for permission to cut and remove trees was forwarded to the first respondent by the Tahsildar, Udumbanchola Taluk along with Ext.P4 report dated 25.6.2011 submitted by the Village Officer, Anakkara Village and Ext.P5 report dated 1.7.2011 of the Tahsildar, Udumbanchola Taluk. Even thereafter, when there was delay in disposal of the application he filed W.P.(C) No.23627 of 2011 in this Court. By Ext.P7 judgment delivered on 31.8.2011, a learned W.P.(C) No.27360 of 2011 2 single judge of this Court directed the first respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's application for permission to cut and remove trees within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The first respondent thereafter passed Ext.P8 order dated 4.10.2011 rejecting the application. Hence this writ petition challenging Ext.P8 and seeking the following reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to Exhibit-P8 and quash the same as illegal.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to issue permit for the cutting and removal of the trees mentioned in Exhibit-P3, P4 and P5 standing in the property comprised in re survey No.110/5 [old survey No.17/1] of Anakkara Village in Udumbanchola Taluk in Idukki District, in accordance with law."
3. The only ground on which the first respondent rejected the petitioner's application for permission to cut and remove trees from his land is that the report submitted by the Tahsildar is not clear as to whether the land belonging to the petitioner is part of Cardamom Hills Reserve. Apart from that no other reason is stated in Ext.P8 to reject the application. In the statement dated 10.11.2011 filed by the Forest Range Officer, Kumily it is stated that the status of the land is not clear from the report dated 26.9.2011 submitted by the Tahsildar. It is also stated that in view of the stipulations in condition No.1 of Ext.P2 patta, the full right over the trees vests in the Government and therefore, the W.P.(C) No.27360 of 2011 3 petitioner is not entitled to cut and remove trees standing in the property. It is also contended that the land belonging to the petitioner is part of Cardamom Hills Reserve. Reliance is placed on Annexure R
(b) notification dated 14.5.1987 in support of the said contention.
4. I heard Sri.Jai George, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.M.P.Madhavankutty, learned special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The Village Officer who forwarded the petitioner's application for permission to cut and remove trees has in Ext.P4 report stated that land does not fall within Cardamom Hills Reserve. The Tahsildar, Udumbanchola Taluk has in Ext.P5 report also stated that the said property is not part of Cardamom Hills Reserve. The property belonging to the petitioner is situated in Anakkara Village in Udumbanchola Taluk, Idukki District. Annexure R(b) notification was issued with a view to prevent cutting and removal of trees from lands forming part of Cardamom Hills Reserve. Ext.P2 patta does not stipulate that the land is assigned for the purpose of Cardamom cultivation. Anakkara Village in Udumbanchola Taluk is not included in Annexure R(b) notification dated 14.5.1987 issued under section 5(1) of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that W.P.(C) No.27360 of 2011 4 the Forest Range Officer, ought not to have rejected the application on the ground that the land belonging to the petitioner is part of Cardamom Hills Reserve. He ought to have considered the application submitted by the petitioner for permission to cut and remove trees on the merits, instead of rejecting on the ground that it is not clear as to whether the property where the trees are standing is part of Cardamom Hills Reserve.
I accordingly allow the writ petition, set aside Ext.P8 and direct the first respondent to pass revised orders on the application submitted by the petitioner for permission to cut and remove trees. Needful in the matter shall be done and orders passed expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the first respondent.
Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. To JUDGE vpv