Merely having possession of trees does not establish ownership without complying with statutory requirements under relevant forest preservation laws.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Exts.P8, P13 & P14 orders; respectively, confiscating the sandalwood stored in his property, which order was confirmed in revision under S.61C and appeal under S.61D of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 .

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner owned 1.72 cents of property, the Possession Certificate of which is produced as Ext.P6. There were 19 sandalwood trees standing in the property, of which 14 fell down due to bad weather. He had collected the same and stored it in his residential property, within a shed. The petitioner had filed application for regularisation and declaring his ownership as also handing over the same to the Forest Department. Ext.P1 was dated

01.08.1998, which was followed up with Ext.P2 dated 29.05.2000. Ext.P2 was replied to by Ext.P3, which directed the petitioner to approach the Tahsildar, which he complied with as per Ext.P4. But he was issued with Ext.P5 notice dated 25.09.2001 by the Divisional Forest Officer threatening seizure and confiscation, if evidence of ownership of trees are not produced. The petitioner furnished Ext.P6 Possession Certificate and gave Ext.P7 objection to the confiscation proceedings. Ext.P8 is the order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Munnar, which does not consider the issue in the proper perspective. It is argued that the petitioner could not have proved the ownership of the trees and having established possession of a property, it was only proper that his claim was allowed. The petitioner approached the Revisional Authority under S.61C, in which a notice was issued as per Ext.P11, posting the hearing of the case on 16.10.2002. According to the petitioner, on the hearing date, his brother attended; but the Authority insisted on his presence. Later an application was addressed to the Revisional Authority dated 21.10.2002 [Ext.P12], in which, after referring to what transpired on the previous date of hearing, the petitioner sought for a further date; which was never intimated. Without any such intimation, the matter was disposed of on 26.10.2002 as per Ext.P13. The dismissal was not proper, especially since the merits of the matter was not considered and the revision was rejected only for reason of non-appearance of the petitioner. An appeal filed also stood rejected by Ext.P14. The learned District Judge also misdirected himself in rejecting the application.

3. Sri.Sangeeth C.U., learned Government Pleader [Forest], on the other hand argued that Exts.P1 & P2 are only attempts to cover up the illegal procurement of sandalwood trees. The Village Officer or the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction and the claim should have been preferred under the Forest Act. It is pointed out that the Possession Certificate does not show the presence of sandalwood trees on the property and it is impossible that 1.72 cents of land would contain 19 sandalwood trees along with a shed. It is prayed that the writ petition be rejected.

4. Ext.P8 indicates that 800 Kgs. of sandalwood logs were found in a shed in the residential property of the petitioner situated in the IXth Ward of the Marayur Village having House No.481. The only claim raised by the petitioner was of the logs being of wind fallen trees in his property having an extent of 1.72 cents. But for the submission that he had collected the wind fallen trees from his property and stored it, as also applied for regularisation before the Village Officer and Tahsildar, there is nothing to prove the ownership. It is also not clear why, the application was made before the Village Officer or Tahsildar, who is not demonstrated to have any authority to declare the ownership of the sandalwood logs.

5. 'Forest produce' as defined under the Forest Act, includes timber and even fibres and roots of sandalwood and 'Timber' is defined as fallen, felled and All wood; whether cut up, fashioned or hollowed. The Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 prohibits not only cutting and uprooting of tree