Ashok Bhushan, J.

The Range Officer/Authorised Officer, Kerala Forest Department and the Tahsildar, Devikulam, who were respondents 1 and 2 in W.P(C) No.29534 of 2015 have come up in appeal against the judgment dated 26.10.2015 in the aforesaid Writ Petition by which judgment, the learned Single Judge has permitted the petitioner to cut and remove 9 planted Eucalyptus trees from 25 cents of land in R.S. No.49/1-1, Block No.14 of Pallivasal Village.

2. Brief facts of the case as emerged from the pleadings on record are: Petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in business of running hotel, hospitality management, etc. For establishing a hotel in Munnar, petitioner purchased 25 cents of land in R.S. No.49/1-1 by sale deed dated 06.05.2015. The previous owner of the property was given no objection certificate by the Pallivasal Grama Panchayat on 24.01.2007 for construction of a building in the said property. In the property there were 9 Eucalyptus trees planted by the previous owner. For making any construction in the property, trees were required to be cut and removed. The previous owner had applied for permission to cut and remove the trees in the year 2014 before the Tahsildar, Devikulam. The Tahsildar, by order dated 03.09.2015, Ext.P5, granted permission to the petitioner for cutting and removing the 9 Eucalyptus trees from the property. In pursuance of the permission, workers of the petitioner had cut away branches of three Eucalyptus trees on 17.09.2015. At this juncture, the Range Officer/Authorised Officer intervened and registered a case against the petitioner. Petitioner filed the Writ Petition with the following reliefs:

"(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to cut and remove 9 Eucalyptus trees standing in the property covered by Ext.P1 based on Ext.P5 permission.

(ii) declare that the action evidence by Exts.P6 and P7 is illegal and unsustainable in the light of Ext.P5.

(iii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for Exts.P6 and P7 and quash the same.

(iv) issue such other and further reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Petitioner's case in the Writ Petition is that under the provisions of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act, 2005 (for short, "the 2005 Act") permission for cutting Eucalyptus trees is not required. The land being covered by pattayam issued under the Land Assignment Act and Rules, Section 5(2) of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1986 Act") is not applicable.

4. A counter affidavit was filed in the Writ Petition by the Range Forest Officer, Devikulam contending that the Village in question has been notified under the 1986 Act by SRO No.1241 of 1990. The Tahsildar is not an Authorised Officer to grant any permission for cutting trees in the notified area under Section 5(2). Permission granted by the Tahsildar was without authority. No permission having been obtained from the Authorised Officer for cutting the trees, petitioner's action was wholly illegal against which a case has already been registered. Copy of the Notification has been brought on record by the 1st respondent as Ext.R1(a). Notification issued under the 2005 Act has been brought on record as Ext.R1(b).

5. The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 26.10.2015 held that branches of 3 Eucalyptus trees were cut and removed by the petitioner based on the permission granted by the Tahsildar which was a bona fide act and hence petitioner is permitted to cut and remove 9 Eucalyptus trees. Learned Single Judge further observed that it is doubtful whether Eucalyptus trees would fall within the trees referred to in the 1986 Act which is an exempted tree under the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas (Amendment) Act, 2007 (for short, "the 2007 Act"). Learned Sin