1. This bunch of writ petitions is filed by tribal/forest dwellers, who were given rights to forest land under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (herein after referred to as the “Act 2/2007”). They approached this Court aggrieved by the denial of permission to cut and remove Anjili trees and Jackfruit trees from the settlement area.

2. The petitioners, trace out their right for cutting and removing trees based on the Act 2/2007 and also with reference to some of the Government Orders. In this context, it is necessary to understand the nature of right devolved upon them in the light of legislative history related to conservation of forest land.

3. Parliament enacted Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (herein after referred to as the “Act 69/1980”') with a view to conserve forest land. The Act 69/1980 placed restriction on use of forest land for non-forest purpose; particularity prohibited deforestation, without the permission of the Central Government. Act 69/1980 was enacted, essentially, with the intention of preserving forest and to prevent felling of naturally grown trees.

4. The State of Kerala is having a vast area of forest land and reserve forest. The Government of Kerala, by virtue of the provisions under Section 7 of the Kerala Land Assignment Act 1960, formulated rules for assignment, settlement and regularisation of forest lands which under occupation prior to 01.01.1977. By virtue of the said Rules, forest land can be assigned on registry for the purpose of personal cultivation or for house sites or for shop sites as the case may be, provided assignee or predecessor/successor-in-interest should have been in occupation of the land prior to 01.01.1977. It appears that a list of assignable lands have already been prepared. The assignment is based on payment of lump sum land value. The land assigned under these Rules were also heritable and alienable; but can be used only for the purpose, for which it was assigned. There was a challenge against these Rules before this Court and this Court by judgment reported in: (Natural Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala) [AIR 2000 KER 131] held that Rules are not arbitrary. Ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also affirmed the above judgment of this Court. It is appropriate to refer para 39 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in (Natural Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala) [2009 (5) SCC 373] which is extracted below.

39. Undisputedly, the object of the 1980 Act is conservation of forest and to prevent depletion thereof. Therefore, the court is bound to interpret the provisions of that Act (sic in a way) which would further the object of the legislation. After enforcement of the 1980 Act, the State Governments were denuded of suo motu power to deal with reserved forest or forest land and permit use thereof for non-forest purposes. They could do so only after obtaining prior approval of the Central Government. However, as large tracts of reserved forests and forest land had been occupied by landless poor, who also undertook cultivation for their sustenance many decades before the enactment of the 1980 Act, and there was demand from several quarters that old occupation of the forest land may be regularised, the Government of India, after taking note of the recommendations made in the Forest Ministers' Conference and the committee appointed by it, issued guidelines for grant of approval to the decision taken by the State Governments before the enforcement of the 1980 Act i.e. 25.10.1980 to regularise encroachments made on forest land and/or use thereof for non-forest purpose. This necessarily implies that where the State Government had not taken any policy decision to regularise pre 25.10.1980 occupation/ encroachment of forest land, no order for regularisation of such occupation/encroachment can be passed without obtaining prior approval of the Central Government in terms of Section 2 of the 1980