1. Vide L.A.A. No. 1386/93 dated 7.7.1994, by Ext. P6, the petitioner had been granted a patta in respect of 70 Ares (1.72.960 Acre) in the Udumbanchola Taluk. His claim is that he is in possession of the property ever thereafter.

2. At the time of the grant, the mandatory conditions as per the rules, had also been incorporated in the patta and condition No.1 was that the wild trees, specifically referred to in the schedule, fully belong and all trees which were there and might erupt are to be properly preserved by the assignee.

3. The petitioner points out that there were five trees so reserved. The petitioner wanted to cut and remove the trees after remitting the tree value. An application as Ext. P1 had been submitted by him in this regard. Reference was made to one Thumbegom and four Chadachi trees. The Village Officer, Konnathady, by Ext. P3 dated 8.11.2001 reported to the Tahsildar that there was a residential house in the property belonging to the petitioner as XI/320 and in the property there was a Thumbegom tree which was rotten and stunted and it was a danger to the house as also cultivations. He referred to the above as a reserved tree in the patta and also showed presence of three Chadachi trees as reserved. He recommended that the Thumbegom tree was having 280-cros. girth and 25 meters height at the time of conferment of patta and its present girth is 325 cros. and height 25 meters. He recommended that the above tree (alone) may be permitted to be cut and removed. Endorsing the report and recommending cutting and removal of Thumbegom tree, the Tahsildar had made a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer (2nd respondent). However, it appears that the second respondent had thought it fit to make a local inspection. The site inspection, according to him, revealed that the tree was not in any danger to the house and it was a very huge tree with a girth of 325 cros. and not susceptible to winds. Observing that this tree comes under the royal tree category and is very valuable and costing "lakhs of rupees" and since the petitioner was not rich enough to buy the tree at such a huge price and since his motives did not appear to be entirely proper, he recorded an opinion that there was no necessity for giving permission for cutting the tree. This order is under challenge.

4. The petitioner submits that there can be no dispute about the proposition, that as an occupier of patta land, the petitioner was obliged to pay only value of the tree as calculated on the date of assignment. Reference had been made to a judgment in O.P. No. 9545 of 1998 and especially the following observation:

"As per R.10(3) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, assignee is liable to pay the value of the trees. It must be the value of the trees standing on the land at the time of assignment at such rate as may be ordered by the Government. The Government have issued G.O.MS.1240/75 dated 22.9.75 under the above provisions. In the G.O. the Government have specifically mentioned that while assigning lands trees value will be realised at the seignorage rate in force at the time of assignment, on the basis of the orders issued by Revenue Department. The argument is of the respondent seems to be that since the petitioners did not pay tree value at the time of assignment, they are liable to pay the value of the trees at the prevailing seignorage rate on the date of cutting of trees. Though R.10(3) of the Kerala Land Assignment Seignorage value of the trees should be at the rate prevalent at the time of assignment there is no rule or order which says that in case the parties fail to remit the tree value at the time of assignment. They are liable to pay seignorage a value at the time of cutting of the trees. Therefore, the present attempt to realise the amount on the basis of the seignorage value at the time of cutting of the trees cannot be sustained".

He also submitted that reference to Thumbegom as a royal tree was incorrect and had referred t