Rajan P.P. v. Deputy Ranger, Forest Station, Kokkatthodu, Kolanchery Taluk, Pathanamthitta District & The Village Officer, Thannithodu Village Office, Pathanamthitta District

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2014/3RD MAGHA, 1935** **WP(C).No. 26375 of 2013 (V)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER:** - **----------** **RAJAN P.P, AGED 43 YEARS S/O PADMANABHAN, RESIDING AT PARAKKANALIL HOUSE MANNERA, THELAMANAM, MANEERA P.O KOLANCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT** **BY ADV. SRI.ABDUL JALEEL.A** **RESPONDENTS:** **-----------** ## **1. DEPUTY RANGER,** - **FOREST STATION, KOKKATHODU, KOLANCHERY TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT** **2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THANNITHODU VILLAGE OFFICE, THANNITHODU KOLANCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT** **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 26375 of 2013 (V)** ## **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NUMBER 632/2003 IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER DATED 17-03-2003** **EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 18-01-2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE 29.79 ARES OF PROPERTY** **EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NUMBER 1161/2011 IN THE NAME OF WIFE OF PETITIONER DATED 23-04-2011** **EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 21-01-2012 ISSUED TO THE WIFE OF PETITIONER IN RESPOECT OF 20.23 ARES OF PROPERTY** **EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE FORM OF OR NO 3/2013 AND MAAZAR PREPARED BY THE IST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE PHOTOS SHOWING THE LIE AND NATURE OF PROPERTIES OF PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04-03-2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 11262/2012** **EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27-05-2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 10135/2013** **EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2011 (3) KLT 682** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:** **------------------------** **ANNEXURE R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 21.3.2013 ISSUED FROM THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II PATHANAMTHITTA.** **ANNEXURE R1(B): TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT. 6.1.2011 IN WP(C) NO.6389/2006** **TRUE COPY** **PA TO JUDGE** **SCL.** ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** .............................................................................. ## **W.P.(C)No.26375 OF 2013** ......................................................................... **Dated this the 23[rd] January, 2014** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: _“i) to declare that by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act, 2005, petitioner has got every right to cut and remove the trees mentioned in Exts. P5, other than those trees prohibited under the very same section;_ _ii) issue writ of mandamus or direction to the 1[st] respondent to release the wooden frames seized from petitioner on reasonable conditions enabling petitioner to resume the building construction in his property._ _Iii) issue such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and_ _iv) award cost to the petitioner.”_ 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the first respondent/Deputy Ranger, Forest Station, mainly contending that the idea and understanding of the petitioner with regard to the rights and liberties with reference to the Kerala Forest **2** ## **W.P.(C)No.26375 OF 2013** (Prohibition of felling of trees standing on Land Temporarily or Permanently Assigned ) Rules, 1995 is not correct, in so far as the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act, 2005 or the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 are not applicable to the case in hand. It is stated that the status of the land involved in the case is 'Reserve Forest'. Hence provision of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 and the Kerala (Preservation, Reproduction and Disposal of Trees and Timber belonging to Government but Grown on Lands in the occupation of Private Persons) Rule, 1975 framed under the Kerala Forest Act, are applicable. The version of the first respondent as to the merit of the case is discernible from paragraphs 4,6 and 7, which are reproduced below for the purpose of convenience.: _“4. The land where the offence was detected falls within Manneera Food Production Area comprising 164.00 ha. and the status of the land still remains as Reserved Forests. Hence the Kerala (Preservation, Reproduction and Disposal of Trees and Timber Belonging to Government but Grown on Lands in the Occupation of Private Persons)Rules, 1975 is applicable in the case. Trees standing in reserved_ **3** ## **W.P.(C)No.26375 OF 2013** _forests lands that are permanently or temporarily assigned belong to Government. The farmers and other persons occupying patta lands in Food Production Area and tribal settlements are however allowed to fell nine species of trees viz., Mavu, Ampazham, Puli Nelli, Kodampuli, Matti, Murikku, Alibizzia and Silver Oak as per GO(MS)No.36/1993/Forest dated 10.05.1993. Plavu timber is not allowed for felling and removal by the occupants of forest lands. In this case, the petitioner had admittedly felled jack trees, which is not permitted. The averments that the provisions of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 is not applicable in this case, is not correct.”_ _“6. It is submitted that the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forests Areas Act, 2005 or the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 are not applicable in this case. In this case the status of lands involved is reserved forest and hence the provisions of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 and the Kerala (Preservation, Reproduction and Disposal of Trees and Timber belonging to Government but Grown on lands in the occupation of Private Persons)Rule 1975, framed under the Kerala Forest Act, are applicable._ _7. It is submitted that Exhibit P7 judgment is not applicable in this case as the_ **4** ## **W.P.(C)No.26375 OF 2013** _lands involved in that case was revenue lands resumed by the Government under the Kannan Devan Hill (Resumption of Lands)Act 1971. Exhibit P8 judgment is also not applicable in this case as the subject matter involved is felling of trees standing dangerous to life and property and the occupier of the land sought permission for felling and removal of trees. In that case, the Honourable Court directed the forest officials to consider giving the timber to the petitioner after realizing seigniorage rate. In this case, the tree was not standing dangerous to the life and property of the petitioner and he has not sought for action from the Forest Department to fell and remove trees. On the other hand, he has felled trees and converted into sawn timber and finished goods in an illegal manner_ “. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that because of the intervention made by the concerned respondent, the entire house construction has come to a standstill and the petitioner seeks for release of the timber already cut and removed, subject to appropriate conditions to be imposed. 4. The learned Government Pleader points out, with reference to paragraph '8' of the Statement filed, that a Criminal **W.P.(C)No.26375 OF 2013** **5** case has been registered and it is still pending before the JFCM Court-II, Pathanamthitta, as borne by Annexure-R1(a). It is also brought to the notice of this Court that some subsequent orders have been passed by the learned Magistrate and that since the concerned articles are to form 'Thondi' in the concerned case, appropriate orders are to be passed by the concerned Magistrate's Court for release of the goods, if any, subject to appropriate conditions. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is liable to satisfy 'seigniorage' payable to the Department/Government,which contention is sought to be rebutted by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that no 'seigniorage' is liable to be paid in respect of the particular nature of the trees and that the issue is covered by the decision reported in **(2009)3 KLT 560** ( _**Augustine Mathew vs. State**_ _**of Kerala**_ ). The learned Government Pleader however seeks to challenge the version of the petitioner. 5. This Court does not find it necessary to deal with the merits of the case as it is a matter to be looked into by the concerned Magistrate's Court, if at all any petition is filed by the petitioner for release of the goods. **6** ## **W.P.(C)No.26375 OF 2013** The writ petition is disposed of, relegating the petitioner to approach the concerned Trial Court, where the criminal case is pending. If any petition is filed, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed, with notice to the respondents , in accordance with law, at the earliest, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of the application filed by the petitioner as aforesaid. ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** _lk_