IMPORTANT POINT
The purport of the conditions is that if the trees are one of the species mentioned in the schedule, whether the trees were standing on the land at the time of assignment or came into existence subsequent to the assignment, the tree would belong to the Government. The Schedule mentions 4 species of tees namely, teak, black wood, ebony and sandalwood. Admittedly this tree is a teak tree. Therefore going by the conditions mentioned above, the full right over all trees within the grant standing on the land at the time of assignment or that may come into existence subsequent to it belongs to the Government.

JUDGMENT :

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:-

“i. To call for the records leading to Exhibit P6 order and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to accord sanction to the petitioner to cut and remove and transport the two teak trees standing in his property having an extent of 28.32 ares situated in Sy.Nos.495, 398/246 and 1398/247 of Neriamangalam Village within a time fixed by this Hon'ble Court.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner is the owner of 28.32 ares of property in Neriamangalam Village, which was purchased by Ext.P1 sale deed. The property was part of a larger extent of property comprised in Survey Nos.495/1, 398/246 and 1398/247 of Neriamangalam Village. The said property was assigned by Ext.P3 patta dated 9.1.1963 to one Mundan Kannan. It is stated that Ext.P5 Mahazar prepared while handing over the property on the basis of Ext.P3 Patta would show that there were no teak trees standing on the property at the time of assignment. It is submitted that after purchasing of the property by Ext.P1 the petitioner has planted trees in the property and that there are two old teak trees in the property having more than 60 inch girth. It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted an application for cutting the said trees under Section 6 of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non Forest Areas Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “2005 Act”) on the basis of his title over the land in question. However, the request of the petitioner had been rejected relying on the condition contained in the Patta.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the non-obstante clause in Section 6 of the 2005 Act to contend that the condition in the Patta cannot stand in the way of the petitioner being permitted to cut and remove the trees in question since the trees were not reserved in the Patta and since it is not in dispute that the trees were planted by the petitioner himself. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2005 Act is enacted with the definite purpose of promoting of cultivation of trees in non-forest areas to increase the green cover and that the provision for permitting the cutting and removal of trees is intended to make the planting of trees economically viable for the holders of land. It is, therefore, contended that the provisions in the said Act are to be strictly construed to make the intentions of the legislature in enacting a statute of this nature possible inasmuch as without permission being granted to cut and remove the trees, which are planted by the owners themselves in registered holdings, there will be no attempt by anybody to plant any trees, which would ultimately defeat the purpose of the legislation itself.

5. A statement has been placed on record by the respondents. It is contended that the condition in the Patta issued to the petitioner specifies that all trees specified in the Schedule vest in the Government and that the assignee is bound to take care of all such trees standing on the land at the time of the assignment or that may come into existence subsequent to it. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the land has been assigned to the petitioner on the specific condition that the trees specified in the Schedule, which are either standing on the property or which may come into existence at any time in future would vest in the Government and that the petitioner would, therefore, have no claim to ownership of such trees. It is stated that the Schedule includes teak, black wood, ebony and sandalwood trees and that any tree coming into existence in the land covered by the grant, at any point in time, would remain vested in the Government. It is further submitted that the first proviso to Section 6(1) is a cl