A Kerala High Court judge allowed a writ petition challenging a Forest Range Officer's rejection of a permit to cut trees. The court set aside the order directing the respondent to reconsider the application on merits within one month.
Ext.P8 order set aside; respondent directed to pass revised orders on the application within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
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:
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."
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.
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
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to cut and remove trees from his land which is not part of Cardamom Hills Reserve.
Whether the rejection order issued by the Forest Range Officer was invalid as it relied on an unclear report rather than merits.
M.M. Mathew
The Forest Range Officer, Kumily
P.N. Ravindran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
