Kerala High Court
Mali Madhavan vs The Divisional Forest Officer on 9 August, 2012
Author: A.M.Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/18TH SRAVANA 1934
WP(C).No. 12649 of 2012 (S)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
MALI MADHAVAN, AGED 65 YEARS
PRESIDENT, JANAKEEYA PRATHIKARANA VEDI, ALATHOOR
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 682.
BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASURYA
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
NEMMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 682.
2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
PALAKKAD.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD.
5. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
OFFICE OF THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, VAZHUTHACAUD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
6. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
7. VIJI SOYI
W/O. SOYI SEBASTIAN
"KAIPPANANIKKAL VEEDU", KARIMKAYAM P.O.
KIZHAKKUMCHERRY VILLAGE II, KUNJIYARVATHY
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
8. SOYI SEBASTIAN
"KAIPPANANIKKAL VEEDU", KARIMKAYAM P.O.
KIZHAKKUMCHERRY VILLAGE II, KUNJIYARVATHY
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY,
SPL. GOVT. PLEADER FOR FOREST DEPARTMENT
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 12649 of 2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE FOREST OFFENCE SEIZURE REPORT IN OFFENCE
NO.1/2012 OF MANGALAM DAM FOREST STATION.
EXT.P2 : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1.
EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.6.4.2000 OF THE 5TH
RESPONDENT TO THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, OLAVAKODE.
EXT.P4 : TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF TREES UPROOTED BY CUTTING FROM THE LAND
POSSESSED BY THE RESPONDENTS 7 AND 8.
EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.11.1.2012 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6 : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P5.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
/TRUE COPY/
PS TO JUDGE
MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J
&
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
----------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No. 12649 of 2012
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of August, 2012
JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and learned Senior Counsel Sri.George Poothottam appearing for respondents 7 and 8. We have also gone through the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent.
2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.George Poothottam submits, he did not think fit in the circumstances to file any counter, as the relief sought is only against respondents 1 to 6 and not against the private parties. In that view of the matter, we have to dispose of the matter taking into account the stand of the department regarding the allegations made against the officials in the Writ Petition.
3. It is not in dispute that respondents 7 and 8 are in possession of 140 acres of coffee plantation comprised in Sy.No.1/1A1A of Kizhakkencherry-II Village, Alathur Taluk. According to the petitioner, though it is termed as 'coffee WP(C).12649/12 2 plantation', factually it is covered with vegetation of forestries and entire 140 acres is forest land and revenue land. In spite of this fact, within the knowledge of respondents 1 to 6, they have ignored the illegal acts of respondents 7 and 8 in cutting and removing forest trees from the said plantation, in spite of bringing it to the notice of the officials by the petitioner. It is also disclosed in the Writ Petition that on the first information furnished, a criminal case is registered as Offence No.1/2012 of Mangalam Dam Forest Station for offences punishable under Sections 6(3), 6 (5), 7 and 9 of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Area Act, 2005. The further grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of registration of such crime, no action is taken against respondents 7 and 8 with regard to their illegal cutting and removal of trees.
4. The counter affidavit filed by the Divisional Forest Officer indicates that there is registration of crime against the 7th respondent and according to him, the averments made in paragraph 5 of the Writ Petition were taken into consideration. According to him, vehicle as well as material object, i.e., thondi timbers pertaining to Offence No.1/12 are already seized by the Forest Department. Necessary notice is also issued to the accused WP(C).12649/12 3 by the Forest Station concerned and investigation is completed. According to him, the land in question is registered as coffee plantation, therefore, the land is deemed to be notified as per Explanatory Note of Section 6 of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Area Act, 2005. As per the Schedule of the Act, 28 species, such as, Rubber, Mango, Jack Fruit Tree, Matti, Konna etc. need not require any permission for cutting and removal by the owners. So far as the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, already prompt action is taken by registering a case against the 7th respondent. From the contents of the counter affidavit, what we notice is, as the land is already notified as coffee plantation, no permission for cutting and removal need to be given by the authorities concerned, if it is with reference to 28 species of trees referred above and so far as other alleged offences, already a crime is registered by the Forest Department and even a charge sheet is prepared and would be filed in due course of time. In that view of the matter, officials are acting in response to the complaints of the petitioner or other public as they have taken action immediately.
WP(C).12649/12 4
We are of the opinion, no specific relief could be granted as sought in the Writ Petition, except saying that the department has to be cautious and keep vigil on the activities in and around the forest taking into account the fact that this property is nothing, but national wealth.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE vgs09.08