Disposed

P.N.Jyothi Prasad v. the Divisional Forest Officer

Kerala HC14 Dec 2022WP(C)/25838/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a revenue authority cannot refuse tree cutting permission for specific property if it is not part of land under pending acquisition/excess land proceedings. The respondent was directed to decide the application under the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth Act.

What did the court decide?

Home respondent to consider applications and grant appropriate decision within one month after hearing.

P.N.Jyothi Prasad Vs the Divisional Forest… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

W.p.(C) No.25838/2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶7

WP(C) NO. 25838 OF 2022

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 P.N.JYOTHI PRASAD AGED 62 YEARS S/O.NEMACHANDRA GOWDAR, RESIDING AT 'PUTHIYADAM, PAYYAMBALLI, P.O.MANANTHAVADY, WAYANDU, 670 646. 2 SIDHARTH J.PRASAD AGED 31 YEARS S/O.JYOTHI PRASAD, RESIDING AT 'PUTHIYADAM', PAYYAMBALLI, P.O.MANANTHAVADY, WAYANADU - 670 646. BY ADVS. V.V.SURENDRAN P.A.HARISH

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANADU- 670646. 2 THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER BEGORE RANGE, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANADU - 670 646. 3 ADDL.R3: VILLAGE OFFICE, VILLAGE OFFICE PAYYAMPALLY, MANANTHAVADY, PAYYAMPALLY, P.O., PIN - 670646, ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11.11.2022 IN WP(C) NO.25838/2022.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SPL. GP FORESTS T.P.SAJAN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.p.(C) No.25838/2022

¶16

¶17

V.G.ARUN J.

¶18

W.P.(C) No.25838 of 2022

¶19

Dated this the 14th day of December 2022

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioners are in ownership and possession of the property comprised in various survey numbers in Payyamballi Village in Mananthavady Taluk. As per an order dated 29/11/1975, the Taluk Land Board found 2.07 acres of land in the petitioners possession to be excess land and directed to surrender that extent. Later, the Taluk Land Board initiated suo motu proceedings under section 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, but ultimately dropped the case as per Ext.P4. By Ext.P5 judgment, this court remanded the matter to the Taluk Land Board for fresh consideration. The matter is pending consideration before the Taluk Land Board.

¶22

The petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of another property , which is not covered by Ext. P5 judgment. The petitioners sought permission for cutting and removing trees from that property. By Exts.P8 and P9, the second respondent refused to grant permission on the premise that the property from which the trees are sought to be cut is part of the land under consideration before the Taluk land board. Aggrieved, this writ petition. is filed seeking the following reliefs;

¶23

W.p.(C) No.25838/2022

¶24

¶25

i). issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Exts.P8 and P9 communications and grant permission to the petitioners to cut and remove the Rosewood trees in their property specifically stated in Ext.P6 and P7 applications.

¶26

ii). issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to grant permission to the petitioners to cut and remove the Rosewood trees in their property in Survey Nos. 418/2 and 422/7 of Payyamballi Village of Mananthavady Taluk more specifically stated in Ext.P6 and P7 applications .

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. Referring to the documents produced, learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that the property from where the trees are sought to be cut is not part of the land under consideration before the Taluk Land Board.

¶28

On a careful scrutiny of Exts. P1, P2 and P3, it is seen that the property

¶29

covered by those documents is in the absolute possession and ownership of the petitioners and does not form part of the area regarding which the Taluk Land Board has been directed to effect reconsideration as per Ext.P5 judgment. In such circumstances, the second respondent cannot refuse permission for cutting the trees on the premise that it is also part of the property regarding which proceedings is pending before the Taluk Land Board. At the same time, while deciding the request for cutting trees, second respondent can advert to the provisions of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act,2005.

¶30

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the second respondent

¶31

W.p.(C) No.25838/2022

¶32

¶33

to consider Exts.P6 and P7 applications and to take an appropriate decision thereon in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act. The order, as directed above, shall be passed, within one month of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

dpk

W.p.(C) No.25838/2022

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25838/2022

¶40

PETITION	ER EXHIB	ITS
Exhibit	P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PAYYAMBALLI DATED 20/04/2022 WITH RESPECT TO THE ABOVE LAND.
Exhibit	P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED DATED 01/12/2012 EXECUTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.
Exhibit	P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER PAYYAMBALLI DATED 20/04/2022 TO THE 2ND PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO THE ABOVE LAND.
Exhibit	P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE TALUK LAND BOARD, MANANTHAVADY DATED 19/05/1998 IN SMC 4/86.
Exhibit	P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 05/06/2006 IN CRP 1402/1999.
Exhibit	P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17/01/2022 MADE BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 13/01/2022 IS FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06/07/2022 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
Exhibit	P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06/07/2022 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

P.N.Jyothi Prasad v. the Divisional Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.N.Jyothi Prasad v. the Divisional Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmanan Vs State of Kerala

Ressy Mol Babu Vs State of Kerala

Mumthas, Vs State of Kerala

Jude Mathew, Vs Kerala Water Authority

Sibi Valsan Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education

Jawahar P.M., Vs the Chief Operating Officer