SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Ker) 130

M.N.KRISHNAN
Augustine Mathew, S/o. Mathai – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioners:Wilson Urmese, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.

Judgment :

This petition is filed to quash Annexure A and all proceedings thereon. As per Annexure-A action is initiated against the petitioners for cutting and removing the teak trees from the residential compound of the petitioners. The petitioners became owner of the property on the basis of orders granted by the Government which are produced in this case. As per the Kerala Forest (Prohibition of Felling of Trees Standing on Land Temporarily or Permanently Assigned) Rules, 1995, while assigning a land, the Government has the right to expressly reserve in the deed of grant regarding the fact that the trees standing on the land shall be the absolute property of the Government. So if there is a condition attached to the assignment order then irrespective of the factum of transfer of land by virtue of the limitation imposed the trees will not vest with the person who is given assignment of the property. Admittedly going through the documents in this case there is no such reservation clause and therefore the property is assigned in favour of the petitioners without reserving any right. So on that basis an action cannot be initiated.

2. The next question is whether the trees can be cut

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top