IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
Mary Baby, W/o. Baby K. C. – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Secretary To The Department Of Revenue and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 15044 Of 2024
Decided On : 13-08-2024
Land - Teak Trees - Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960; Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964; Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act, 2005 - The court interpreted the provisions of the Land Assignment Act and Rules, affirming that all trees, including those planted after assignment, vest in the Government, influencing the dismissal of the petitioner's claim.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of her application to cut and transport teak trees planted on her assigned land, arguing that the trees should not vest in the Government as per the conditions of her land assignment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that under the Land Assignment Act and Rules, all trees on assigned land, regardless of when they were planted, vest in the Government, thus upholding the rejection of the petitioner's application.
Issues: Whether the petitioner has the right to cut and remove teak trees planted on her assigned land, given the conditions of the land assignment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conditions in the patta clearly state that all trees, whether existing at the time of assignment or planted later, vest in the Government, limiting the assignee's rights.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Kauser Edappagath, J.) :
Ext.P12 order passed by the 4th respondent rejecting Ext.P4 application submitted by the petitioner to issue pass to cut, remove and transport teak trees planted by her in her property is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner is the owner of 0.072 hectares of land comprised in Survey No.1397/146/1 situated in Peechi Village. She obtained the said property by way of assignment under the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960 (for short 'the Land Assignment Act') as per Ext.P1 patta. According to the petitioner, after she acquired the right over the property as per Ext.P1, she planted around 150 teak trees therein. Since a neighbour has been complaining that the trees are a threat to his house, she decided to cut and remove them, and she submitted Ext.P4 application before the 3rd respondent seeking permission to cut the trees and to issue a pass to transport the same. The 3rd respondent asked the petitioner to approach the revenue authorities. Accordingly, she submitted Ext.P6 application seeking permission to cut and remove the teak trees before the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent rejected the Ext.P6 application as per the Ext.P12 order, which is impugned in this writ petition.
3. I have heard Smt. Sneha Rajiv, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. T.P. Sajan, the learned Special Government Pleader.
4. Ext.P6 application submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the 4th respondent mainly holding that all the trees in the assigned land vest in the Government as per the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 (for short, 'the Land Assignment Rules'). Section 3 of the Land Assignment Act deals with the assignment of Government land. Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 says that assignment of Government land shall be subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as may be prescribed. Section 8 says that all the provisions, restrictions, conditions and limitations contained in any patta or other document evidencing the assignment of Government land or of any interest therein shall be valid and take effect according to their tenor notwithstanding any law for the time being in force or any custom or contract to the contrary. Thus, as per Sections 3 and 8 of the Land Assignment Act, the assignee of Government land is bound by the restrictions, limitations and conditions prescribed in the patta or other document evidencing the assignment of Government land.
5. Ext.P1 is the patta issued to the petitioner under Rule 9(2) of the Land Assignment Rules in the Form in Appendix II. The 1st condition in Ext.P1 patta is that the full right over all the trees within the grant and specified in the schedule vests in the Government and the assignee is bound to take care of all the trees standing on the land at the time of assignment or that may come into existence subsequent to it. The teak trees are mentioned in the Schedule of Ext.P1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the restriction applies to the trees mentioned in the schedule and standing on the property at the time of assignment. I cannot subscribe to the said argument. On assignment of the Government land, the patta has to be issued to the assignee in the Form in Appendix II under Rule 9(2) of the Land Assignment Rules. Such a Form contains certain conditions. Condition Nos. (1) and (2) therein reads thus:
2. The assignee is bound to afford all facilities to the officers of Government in the matter of inspecting the land periodically for checking the trees referred to in condition (1)above and removing them, if necessary:
6. Ext.P1 patta also contains the above conditions. The purport of those conditions is that if the trees are one of the
AI
Article 48A in part IV of Constitution of India dealing with a duty is cast upon State for 'protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife', of country.
The absence of statutory provisions prohibits government claims over trees planted post-property assignment.
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....
The State retains absolute ownership of trees on assigned land, and cutting without permission constitutes an offense under the relevant rules.
The court upheld the damages for illegal tree cutting, emphasizing revenue authorities can't impose fines, and the need for fair assessment of damages considering the petitioner's circumstances.
A writ of certiorari cannot be issued to enforce rights under repealed rules; legal rights must be based on current statutory provisions.
Assignment of land - A person who is having a registered holding and who requires adjoining government land for beneficial enjoyment of his registered holding can be granted assignment of government ....
When a land is assigned specifically, the holder of the land cannot use it for any other purpose, even without a specific stipulation in the patta conditions.
The court affirmed that only the District Collector has the authority to assign land under the Kannan Devan Hills Act, rendering any patta issued by an unauthorized officer invalid.
Government land designated for public use cannot be assigned for private benefit, affirming jurisdictional integrity in administrative orders.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.