The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of S.5(1) of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986, and the definition of 'tree' to include any species of tree for the purpose of the Act, as well as the consideration of the context in which the term 'tree' was used and the definitions provided in other related statutes.

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Petitioner in O.P. No. 8209 of 1995 is now holding 14.85 acres of land in R.S.No.1 of Ullipadam Village, Ernad Taluk, which was part of a private forest vested in the Government as per the provisions of Private Forests (Vesting and assignment) Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971). The area was subject matter of O.A. No. 65 of 1977 of Forest Tribunal, Manjeri, the order of which was confirmed by this Court in M.F. A. No. 439 of 1979. As per the order of the Tribunal, an area of 14.85 acres was handed over to the petitioner on 20.2.1995 after completing all formalities.

2. Government of Kerala issued a notification dated. 28.2.1989 under S.5(1) of Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 in the Gazette dated 13.3.1989 directing that no tree standing in the area specified in the Schedule thereto shall be cut, uprooted, burnt or otherwise destroyed except on the ground that the tree constitutes a danger to life or property; or the tree is dead, diseased and wind fallen. Reason for issuing such a notification was that the area is supported by valuable tree growth. Felling of trees in the area would adversely affect the ecological balance and would lead to soil erosion.

3. Petitioner, however, submitted an application-dated 24.3.1995 before the Forest Range Officer, Nilambur for permission to cut and remove about 1000 bamboo trees for the purpose of raising rubber plantation. According to petitioner, unless bamboo trees are cut and removed, land cannot be used for rubber cultivation. Application submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the Forest Range Officer stating that cutting of bamboos in the vested area is prohibited, since Government has issued notification under S.5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Petitioner in O.P. No. 14911 of 1996 is in possession of 2,87 acres of land comprised in Sy.No.1/1 of Kalkoonthal Village in Idukki District. Above mentioned land is situated in the Cardamom Hills Reserve in Udumbanchola Taluk. Petitioner submits he had planted nearly 20 anjali trees, which are now, according to petitioner, aged about 20 years. Petitioner wanted to cut and remove the said anjali trees for the purpose of cultivation of crops. Since, the area comes within the Cardamom Hills Reserve he submitted an application seeking permission to cut and remove the anjali trees before the Forest Range Officer, purported to be under S.4 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act. Eventhough petitioner's application was recommended by the Range Officer, the same was however rejected by the Divisional Forest Officer by his order dated 10.9.1996 stating that the area comes within the Cardamom Hills Reserve and that if permission is granted the same would affect the preservation of trees. It was stated any permission if granted would violate S.5 of the Preservation of Trees Act. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has approached this Court.

5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents in O.P.No. 8209 of 1995. It was stated the area is a private forest vested in the Government under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and assignment) Act, 1971. Cutting of any tree from the said area is prohibited under S.5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, except on the ground that the tree consitutes a danger to life or property, or tree is dead, diseased and windfallen. In the statement filed in O.P.No. 14911 of 1996 it was stated the area from where anjali trees are to be cut and removed comes within the Cardamom Hills Reserve and therefore, the same also cannot be permitted under S.5 of 1986 Act. Counsel for the petitioners however maintain the stand that Bamboo as well as anjali trees are not trees as defined under S.2(e) of the 1986 Act, and therefore, respondents have no jurisdiction to refuse permission for cutting and removing the said trees. It was pointed out restriction is only with regard to trees enumerated under