Government has no rights over trees planted on assigned land by the petitioner under the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act, 2005.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since a common issue is involved in these writ petitions, they have been heard and disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The 1^st petitioner in WP(C) No.27509 of 2022, is the owner in possession of 2.59 hectares of property in Sy No.639/1 and 639/2, and the 2nd petitioner is the owner in possession of 1.27 hectares of property in Sy.Nos 639/3 and 670/1 of Pangarappilly Village, Thalappilly Taluk, Thrissur District. The reliefs sought in the writ petition are as follows:

“a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction and thereby direct the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to give permission to cut and remove the remained trees in the assigned land owned by the petitioners which are cultivated by them within a stipulated time as fixed by this Hon'ble court, by allowing Ext.P6 and P7 applications.

b) Declare that the petitioners have every right to plant other trees in the property assigned to them in the light of Section 3 of Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non- Non-Forest Areas Act, 2005 and they have every right to cut and remove the trees therein as per Section 6 of Act, 2005 and hence Ext-P8 O.R.8/2022 registered against the petitioners is illegal and unsustainable in law.

c) Grant such other order, which are just and necessary in the interest of justice and deem fit, just and proper Interim relief.”

Whereas in WP(C) No.29418 of 2022, the petitioner is the owner in possession of 1.2380 hectares of property in Sy.No. 319/2 and 319/7 of Pulakode Village, Thalappilly Taluk, Thrissur District. The relief sought in the writ petition are as follows:

“i) Call for the entire records leading to Ext-P6 and P7 quash same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction

ii) Issue a writ, of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction and thereby direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to give permission to cut and remove the trees as sought for in Ext-P4 application within a stipulated time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

iii) Declare that the holder of land acquired as per the purchase certificate issued under the provisions of Special Rules for Assignment of Government Land for Rubber Cultivation , 1960, after paying purchase price, has every right to cut and remove the trees standing in his holding as per the provisions of Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non Forest Areas Act, 2005

iv) To dispense with producing English translation of documents.

v) Grant such other order, which are just and necessary in the interest of justice and deem fit, just and proper Interim relief. “

In WP(C) No.29418 of 2022, the request made by the petitioner for cutting and removing trees standing in the patta land was declined by Ext.P6. Later, by Ext.P7, the Divisional Forest Officer, Thrissur, also rejected the appeal against the same, taking a stand that the right of the trees over the patta land is with the Government and therefore, permission cannot be granted for cutting and removing the trees. The contention of the petitioner is that the property was assigned and a patta was issued to the petitioner's father as per Ext.P1, and as per Ext.P3, the land was assigned, and at the time of the assignment of land, there were no trees in the property and therefore, no tree value was charged. After obtaining the said property, the petitioner's father cultivated rubber and also planted teak, Anjili and Maruthu for the protection of the rubber plantation. Petitioner submitted an application for removal of the trees for re- plantation of the rubber; the same was rejected as per Ext.P6, against which an appeal was preferred before the Divisional Forest Officer, which also ended up in dis