Small holders have a legal right to cut trees from non-forest land under the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth Act, without undue regard to unsubstantiated claims of government property vesting.

The petitioner, who is the absolute owner in possession of an extent of 0.6655 hectares of land situated in Resurvey No.138/4 in Block No.156 in Kerala Estate Village, Malappuram District, submitted Ext.P3 application before the respondent No.2 on 30/09/2021 under the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth Act , 2005, seeking permission for cutting teak wood trees from his property. The application was in Form No.1, which is a declaration prescribed under Rule 3 of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Area Rules, 2011. In response to Ext.P3 application, the respondent No.2 inspected the property of the petitioner, measured the trees standing therein and prepared a copy of the list of trees, which is marked as Ext.P6.

Thereafter, the respondent No.1 passed Ext.P18 order rejecting Ext.P3 application. It is challenging Ext.P18 order, this writ petition has been preferred.

2.I have heard Sri.M.P.Madhavankutty, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.T.P.Sajan, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest).

3. Section 6 of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act, 2005 deals with the right of owners to cut and remove trees in non-notified areas in non forest land. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 says that “the Government may, with a view to preserving tree growth in the interest of protecting the ecology or in public interest by notification in the Gazette direct that no tree standing in any area of non-forest land specified in the notification shall be cut, uprooted, burnt or otherwise destroyed except on the ground that the tree constitutes a danger to life or property or is wind fallen”. The first proviso to the said sub-section says that “small holders in the area are free to cut and remove any tree except the specified trees”. The second proviso says that “the small holders in the area may cut and remove any specified tree other than sandalwood only with the prior permission in writing of the Authorised Officer”. The “small holder” has been defined under Section 2 (db) of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act, 2005, which says that “ 'small holder' means the owner of a non-forest land not exceeding one hectare in extent as on the date of coming into force of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas (Amendment) Act, 2007”. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a small holder.

4.The respondent No.1 rejected Ext.P3 application as per Ext.P18 order on the ground that the larger property comprising the property belonging to the petitioner should have been vested in the Government as a private forest as per the provisions of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act , 1971 and also as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act . Ext.P18 order would show that the respondent No.1 has unnecessarily gone into the title of the petitioner over the property. The documents produced by the petitioner show that he is the title holder in possession of the property in question. Admittedly, no notification has been passed by the Government vesting the property under the provisions of the , 1971. There is also nothing on record to show that the property has been vested in the Government as per the , 1963. Therefore, the respondent No.1 was not at all justified in denying the permission sought for on the ground that the property should have been vested in the Government as per the provisions of and the , 1971. Hence, Ext.P18 order is set aside. The respondent No.1 is directed to grant permission to the petitioner to cut and remove teak wood trees from his property as requested in Ext.P3 application in accordance with law.

The writ petition is allowed as above.