The main legal point established is that the petitioner's rights under the title deed were modified by the Kerala Grants and Leases (Modification of Rights) Act, 1980, and the petitioner is liable to pay seigniorage for felling trees.

JUDGMENT :

N. NAGARESH, J.

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P7 and to allow Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner taking note of the provisions of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act, 2005.

2. The petitioner states that ownership of 205.80 Acres of plantation land in Survey No. 469 and another extent of 17.15 Acres of plantation land in Survey No. 467 in Manjumala Village, Peermade Taluk in Idukki District, was purchased by petitioner's father on the basis of grant made by the Travancore Government, on 25.02.1923. The ownership of the land in question was purchased by the petitioner's father paying British Rs. 7,728.12 as per Ext.P1 title deed dated 14.08.1941.

3. The petitioner's father planted several trees and made valuable improvements in the property. The petitioner made an application dated 06.04.2006 to the 1st respondent- Forest Range Officer seeking NOC for felling 104 rosewood trees and 40 teak wood trees from the property. And by Ext.P3, the 1st respondent-Forest Range Officer informed the petitioner that NOC cannot be granted in view of the fifth condition of Ext.P1 title deed to the effect that the full right over all the trees in the properties mentioned in Ext.P1 are fully vested with the Government.

4. The petitioner thereupon filed W.P. (C) No. 16056/2006. This Court allowed the writ petition and directed that permission shall be accorded by the Government within a period of one month, as per Ext.P4 judgment. The State filed Writ Appeal against Ext.P4 judgment. A Division Bench of this Court, as per Ext.P5 judgment, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and directed the 1st respondent to consider the request of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. The 1st respondent, however, rejected the request of the petitioner as per Ext.P7. Aggrieved by Ext.P7 communication, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Ext.P7 is arbitrary and unsustainable. The interpretation made by the 1st respondent on Section 3(1) of the Kerala Grants and Leases (Modification of Rights) Act, 1980 is not applicable to the petitioner as Ext.P1 deed is not a grant, but a title deed. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the 1st respondent did not consider the issue in the light of the provisions of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act 2005, as directed by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment.

6. There is no provision enabling the 1st respondent to prevent the petitioner from cutting and removing the trees, contended the counsel for the petitioner. If the 1st respondent had considered Section 6 of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act 2005, he would have allowed Ext.P2 application, argued the counsel for the petitioner.

7. The 1st respondent filed a statement opposing the writ petition, through Special Government Pleader (Forests). The learned Special Government Pleader (Forests) argued that the requirement of the petitioner is to cut and remove the rosewood trees. The case will not come under the purview of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act 2005, as the property held by the petitioner is a grant which will come under the purview of the Kerala Grants and Leases (Modification of Rights) Act, 1980. In view of Section 3(A) of the said Act, 1980, the petitioner can appropriate for his own use all trees standing on the land except teak, Blackwood, ebony, Karam Thali and sandalwood, subject to payment of seigniorage at the rates specified.

8. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Jose vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2020 (2) KLT 560, the learned Special Government Pleader argued that the contention of the petitioner that only those trees which were actually standing on the land in question at the time when the grant was made, are exempt from the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act 2005, cann