SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 483

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Musthafa, S/o. Muhammedkutty and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Secretary, Department Of Forest And Wild Life, Government Secretariat and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 9108 Of 2017
Decided On : 22-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sri. P. Jayaram.
For the Respondents: Sri. Sangeeth C.U., Special Govt. Pleader (Forest).

IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal principle established in the judgment is the importance of protecting trees for environmental benefits and the regulation of tree felling and disposal on Government lands.

Headnote:

Trees - Environmental Protection - G.O.(Rt.)No.68/2010/F&WLD - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking permission to cut and remove trees obstructing view to a commercial building, emphasizing the importance of trees in providing shade, oxygen, and shelter to birds and animals. The court highlighted the Government Order (G.O.(Rt.)No.68/2010/F&WLD) regulating the felling and disposal of trees on Government lands and emphasized that trees on roadsides should not be cut and removed without sufficient reasons.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought permission to cut and remove trees obstructing the view to their commercial building, claiming that the trees posed a threat to their building and hindered business activities. The Public Works Department recommended cutting the trees due to dangerous hanging branches, but the Forest Department rejected the application, stating that the trees provided shade and shelter to birds and animals.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners' real intention was to cut and remove the trees to enhance the view to their building and attract tenants, rather than for genuine safety concerns. The court emphasized the importance of protecting trees for environmental benefits and rejected the petitioners' claims.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners should be granted permission to cut and remove trees obstructing the view to their commercial building.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that trees should not be cut and removed solely to benefit commercial activities or enhance the view to buildings. It emphasized the environmental benefits of trees and highlighted the Government Order (G.O.(Rt.)No.68/2010/F&WLD) regulating the felling and disposal of trees on Government lands.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no merit in the petition and nothing to interfere with the Forest Department's decision to reject the application. The court also directed the Chief Secretary of the State to issue orders ensuring that trees on roadsides are not cut and removed without sufficient reasons.

JUDGMENT :

This Writ petition is filed by the petitioners against an order rejecting their application for cutting and removing trees standing near their building on the Palakkad – Ponnani road (via Pattambi), which, according to them, is a danger to the public and also obstructs the view to their building. While going through the pleadings in this case, I remember the great poet and environmentalist, Smt. Sugathakumari teacher. She is known for her love towards the nature and the environment. No Malayalee will be blamed if she is called the Mother of nature. It will be beneficial to quote a few lines of her famous poem:

“OTHER LANGUAGE”

2. The sum and substance of the poem is like this:

    'Let us plant a sapling for our mother,

Let us plant a sapling for our little ones,

Let us plant a sapling for a hundred birds,

Let us plant a sapling for a better tomorrow,

It is planted for breath,

It is planted with gratitude for rainfall,

For beauty, for shades, for honey like fruits,

Let us plant hundreds of saplings'

Every citizen of this country should remember these words of Sugathakumari teacher who lived for the nature and the environment, whenever they take an axe to cut and remove trees. Cutting trees without any reason is nothing but a massacre of the nature and environment of our motherland.

3. Petitioners are absolute owners, who are in actual possession of land bearing Re-survey No.240/1 and 0.0633 at Edathara Village, Palakkad. Petitioners were granted a permit to construct a commercial building on the said land by the local authority, Parali Grama Panchayat. When the writ petition was filed, the construction of the building was almost complete. It is submitted that the petitioners' land abuts, on the north, the Palakkad to Pattambi State Highway. It is stated that huge trees are standing between the petitioners' property and the public road. The trees are planted by the Forest Department as part of afforestation. According to the petitioners, the trees stand in a manner hazardous to the petitioners' building. The petitioners approached the Public Works Department with a request to remove the trees. It is submitted that, on inspection, the Officials of the Public Works Department were convinced about the veracity of the complaints of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, unless the trees are cut, it would not be practical to carry on business activities in the petitioners' building. It is also stated that the intending tenants shy away to occupy the rooms. The trees actually have now begun to pose challenge to the very livelihood of the petitioners, is the submission. It is the case of the petitioners that hard earned money of the petitioners is used to construct the building. The trees are now causing a threat to the life and property of the petitioners. The trees are standing on the road belonging to the Public Works Department. It is submitted that the Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department, on the basis of the petitioners' complaint and the inspection report, requested the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Social Forestry Division, the permission to cut and remove the trees. It is also submitted that the petitioners are ready to plant trees at their property in substitution for the trees to be cut in their complaint. Petitioners are also ready to bear the expenses of cutting and removing the trees and also to pay the value of the trees. Ext.P5 is the letter dated 05.03.2016 from the Assistant Engineer, Public Works -Road Section No.1, Palakkad to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works -Road Section No.1, Palakkad recommending the cutting of trees because the branches of the trees are hanging in a dangerous manner. Ext.P6 is the letter dated 09.03.2016 from the Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works – Road Section to the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Social Forestry Division, Olavakkod, Palakkad in which also it is stated that the branches of the trees are hanging in a dangerous condition and

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top