Petitioner challenged obstruction in cutting trees. Court resolved custody dispute regarding timber cut from reserved land versus patta land, directing release of specific trees to petitioner and disposing of petition on relief sought.
Respondents directed to release 11 plavu trees to the petitioner within two months from receipt of judgment copy.
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 SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/19TH KARTHIKA, 1938
OP.No. 16416 of 1998 (D)
PETITIONER(S):
TAS-HILL CARDEMOM (P) LTD., ANAVILASAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MICHAEL KALLIVAYALIL.
BY ADVS.SRI.N.SUKUMARAN, SRI.T.G.LELLULAL, SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE, SRI.S.SYAM.
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.
2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOTTAYAM.
3. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, FOREST RANGE OFFICE, KUMILI, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
4. VILLAGE OFFICER, ANAVILASAM VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK.
BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER (FOREST) SRI.SANDESH RAJA.
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
OP.No. 16416 of 1998 (D)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-
....2/-
OP.No. 16416 of 1998 (D)
EXT.R3D COPY OF THE PAPER NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN RASHTRA DEEPIKA DATED 26/08/1998.
ANNEX. R3A COPY OF THE JOINT SURVEY REPORT DATED 09/07/2012. ANNEX. R3A FILED ALONG WITH COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 04/11/2016 ANNEX. R3A: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 27/06/2016.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
P.V.ASHA, J.
OP No.16416 of 1998
Dated this the 10th day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this writ petition complaining that the first respondent was obstructing the cutting and removal of trees despite Ext.P3 permit.
OP No.16416 of 1998
:2:
respondent as per Ext.P6 letter dated 29.7.1998 directed the petitioner to appear in his office for a hearing on its complaint, with all the records relating to the property, including the nature and extent of pata land, Coffee Plantation, records from the Coffee Board; cardamom land; pepper plantation etc. along with the records for the same, dry land and all the documents, tax receipts, certificates/permits and cutting permits if any received from the Village Office/Range Office etc. It was asked to furnish explanation for cutting the trees, while prohibitory orders were in force against cutting trees from CHR area. By Ext.P7 letter dated 10.8.1998, the petitioner furnished the details called for, along with permit issued by the Village Officer for cutting trees.
OP No.16416 of 1998
:3:
tree, albesia etc. were exempted from the provisions contained in the Preservation of Trees Act. As the petitioner could not cut and remove the trees, it approached this court, seeking for a direction to the respondents to permit it, asserting its right to cut and remove the trees on the basis of the permit issued to it.
OP No.16416 of 1998
:4:
24 plavu trees was therefore unauthorised. Apart from that it was also stated that 12 albezia trees were also cut from cardamom patta land. In paragraph 6, it was also stated that cutting permit issued by the Range Officer Sri.P.Gopalakrishnan Nair was not in order and he was placed under suspension as per order dated 27.7.1998 of the Chief Conservator of Forest.
6 . Thereafter by order dated 3.3.2000 in CMP.No.8942/2000 this court had allowed the petitioner to remove the timber of 23 jack trees which were already cut by the petitioner. Thereafter the respondents found that the trees were cut from the cardamom land itself and filed W.A.No.164/2000 was filed against the order passed on 3.3.2000 pointing out that the petitioner had no right over the trees and it cannot be allowed to remove the timber. The Writ Appeal was dismissed observing that respondents can move for review of the order. Thereupon a review petition was filed against the order passed in CMP No.8942/2000 in OP No.16416/1998 pointing out that the trees cut by the petitioner were not from its Puthuval Pathivu land but all the trees were on cardamom hill reserve. In this review petition, it was stated that the interim order allowing the petitioner to transport 23 jack trees, happened to be passed, since it was not noticed, while filing
OP No.16416 of 1998
:5:
the counter affidavit that four OR cases were registered against the petitioner for cutting trees from cardamom hill resort. Apart from that when the forest survey was completed, it was found that the boundaries shown by the Village Officer and the counter affidavit filed on the basis of the certificate of the Village Officer were incorrect. In that survey, it was found that all the jack trees and albezia trees were cut from cardamom hill reserve and not from Puthuval Pathivu land. Stating that the counter affidavit happened to be filed on the basis of the wrong statement, and wrong certificate issued from the Revenue Department, which was revealed incorrect in the forest survey conducted, the Department prayed for reviewing the interim order clarifying that those 23 jack trees are also disputed timber logs which cannot be allowed to be transported before a decision was taken in the writ petition finally. The R.P. was dismissed. Thereupon, the respondents filed W.A.No.994/2000 against the order in CMP No.8942 of 2000 and the Division Bench as per judgment dated 15.1.2001 permitted the Department to remove those 23 jack trees covered by the order dated 3.3.2000 in safe custody, till the disposal of the writ petition.
OP No.16416 of 1998
:6:
on 25.5.2000, it was stated that as per Ext.P3 cutting permit, the then Forest Ranger had permitted to cut down 49 jack trees and 11 albezia trees from 8.27 acres of Puthuval Pathivu land. Based on that permit the petitioner had cut 48 jack trees and 11 albezia trees. On the question of issuing transit permit the revenue authorities informed that out of the 48 jack trees cut, 23 were standing in Puthuval Pathivu land and the counter affidavit happened to be filed stating that 23 plavu trees were from Puthuval Pathivu land and 24 plavu trees from cardamom reserve land. It was further stated that on inspection by the Forest Department, it was found that in addition to the 24 jack trees cut from the cardamom hill reserve land 12 albesia trees and 12 jack trees were seen cut from cardamom hill reserve area and accordingly two mahazars were prepared on 19.7.1998 itself in respect of those 12 jack trees.
OP No.16416 of 1998
:7:
Department and file a joint report along with affidavit. However in the joint report submitted thereafter it was stated that the survey could not find out any stumps. An affidavit was filed by the 3rd respondent on 18.8.2012 producing Annexure R3(a) joint survey report, in which it was stated that no stumps of trees could be found out. The Surveyor Sri.Ajish Thomas of Divisional Forest Office and Sri.P.V.Antony surveyor of the petitioner, jointly inspected the area along with Forest Range Officer, Kumali and the Forester in charge of the area and verified the land based on the survey sketch. It was further stated that the Range Officer, Kumali had verified the area as demarcated by the forest mini survey unit during 1999 itself and found that no trees were felled from the 8.27 acres of patta land as claimed by the petitioner.
OP No.16416 of 1998
:8:
with respect to the timber of 24 plavu trees which were directed to be kept in safe custody on the basis of the order passed in W.A.No.994/1990.
OP No.16416 of 1998
:9:
been from the patta land of the petitioner.
Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that there can be a direction permitting the petitioner to remove 11 plavu trees which were cut. Since the disputed 23 plavu trees were directed to be kept under the safe custody of the respondents, the respondents shall release 11 out of the 23 plavu trees which are kept under the safe custody on the basis of the order dated 11.1.2001 in W.A.No.994/2000 to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/- P.V.ASHA JUDGE
rkc
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is allowed to remove 11 plavu trees cut from patta land which are currently under safe custody of respondents.
Whether the disputed timber of 23 plavu trees cut from cardamom hill reserve relieves the petitioner of the burden of safe custody.
Tas-Hill Cardemom (P) Ltd.
State of Kerala
The Divisional Forest Officer, Kottayam
The Forest Range Officer, Kumili
Village Officer, Anavilasam Village
P.V. Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
