The main legal point established in the judgment is that landowners have the right to cut and transport trees from their private land in accordance with the state legislations, especially in the absence of specific provisions prohibiting tree felling and transportation in the proposed Buffer Zone around the Silent Valley National Park.

JUDGMENT :

These writ petitions are filed seeking to permit the petitioners to remove trees cut by them from their own land. The petitioners are residents of Attappadi and state that they need to cut trees and sell some of the woods to raise money to construct their pucca houses. The respondents resist transportation of woods on the ground that the land from which trees are sought to be cut and removed, is forming part of the proposed Buffer Zone around the Silent Valley National Park and it is an Ecologically Sensitive Zone.

2. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.26919/2019 are legal heirs of late Rami who obtained Patta in respect of 6.98 Ares of land in Survey No.25/3 and 55.10 Ares of land in Survey No.26/3 of Kallamala Village. The petitioners are now in joint position of the land and are paying land tax. The petitioners are cultivating pepper vine, etc. in the said property. The petitioners are residing in thatched houses and wanted to construct Pucca houses. As the petitioners decided to construct Pucca houses, due to scarcity of funds, the petitioners cut certain trees standing in their private land with an intention to sell. Applications submitted by the petitioners for permission to transport the trees were not entertained.

3. By Ext.P6 communication dated 17.08.2017 of the Assistant Wildlife Warden, the petitioners were informed that since the land is situated in the Ecologically Sensitive Buffer Zone of Silent Valley National Park, permission cannot be granted to cut and remove trees from even private land. By Ext.P7 letter dated 31.03.2018, the Range Forest Officer, Attapadi Range returned the applications on the same ground. The Assistant Wildlife Warden, Bhavani Forest Range issued Ext.P9 letter dated 08.09.2018 stating that as it would affect rare bio species in Silent Valley National Park, the petitioners cannot cut and remove trees from the Buffer Zone.

4. The petitioners earlier approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.32188/2018 and this Court gave liberty to the petitioners to approach the Wildlife Warden and the Wildlife Warden was directed to finalise the issue in a time frame. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners filed appeals under Section 6 of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act, 2005 challenging Ext.P9 order dated 08.09.2018 of the Assistant Wildlife Warden. The said appeals were dismissed as per Ext.P15 order of the Wildlife Warden. It was stated in Ext.P15 that since the property/land of the petitioners is situated in the Buffer Zone of Silent Valley National Park which is going to be notified as Ecologically Sensitive land, the applications of the petitioners cannot be allowed. The petitioners are before this Court challenging Exts.P6, P9 and P15 orders.

5. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.28696/2019 state that they are legal heirs of late Ramaswami who obtained Patta in respect of 62.80 Ares of property in Survey No.25/2 of Kallamala Village. On the demise of Ramaswami, the petitioners are in possession of the land and are paying land tax. The petitioners proposed to construct pucca houses in the said property and due to financial constraints, they cut trees standing in their property. The trees were intended to be utilised, partly for house construction and partly for sale to raise funds for construction. The petitioners submitted applications for permission to transport the trees cut by them. By Ext.P4 letter dated 10.08.2017, the Assistant Wildlife Warden, Bhavani Forest Range declined the request of the petitioners. The petitioners were further informed as per Ext.P6 letter dated 08.09.2018 of the Assistant Wildlife Warden that their applications cannot be allowed since the land falls within the Buffer Zone of Silent Valley National Park and is ecologically sensitive.

6. The petitioners thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.32483/2018 and this Court directed the Wildlife Warden to consider the issue raised by the petitioners. Exts.P10 and P11 appeals filed by the petitioners were rejected by the Wi