Statutory restrictions on tree removal govern property rights, affirming non-entitlement without compliance.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be a senior citizen. The petitioner has come in possession of a property, which originally belong to one Smt.Lakshmikutty Amma, who was given restoration of possession of the land by the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad, pursuant to the order dated 26.11.1977 in O.A. No.582 of 1975. After the restoration, as above, as earlier as on 18.02.2005, Ext.P1 notification–S.R.O. No.202/2005, is issued by the Government under Section 5 (1) of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), ordering that as regards the trees in the properties falling under the schedule therein, they shall not be cut, uprooted, burnt or otherwise destroyed. A certificate was also issued by the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Palakkad, specifically with reference to the provisions of the Act dated 04.04.2005. It is on the basis of the orders at Exts.P1 and P2, admittedly, that the petitioner is in possession of the property in question. By an application dated 22.12.2022, he sought permission for cutting and removing trees in an extent of 31 cents, pointing out that he required to construct a residential house in that extent of property. By the impugned order at Ext.P3, the Forest Department having refused to consider this prayer, the petitioner has instituted the captioned writ petition.

2. I have heard Sri.P.Jayaram, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.T.P.Sajan, learned Special Government Pleader (Forest).

3. The contention raised by the petitioner is mainly to the effect that the fact that the application seeking permission to cut and remove the trees is not for the entire extent of the property, but only for a limited extent of 31 cents, was not taken note of. The petitioner also states that Ext.P1 Government Order dated 18.02.2005, was issued for taking care of the imminent danger in a situation where, after registration of the property, the trees therein are sought to be cut and removed, whereas, in the case at hand, the application seeking permission to cut and remove trees has been filed/presented after the expiry of almost 17 years. Therefore, according to the petitioner, a realistic approach ought to have been taken while issuing the order at Ext.P3 dated 02.03.2023.

4. However, in my opinion, admittedly, the petitioner is in possession of the property on the basis of the orders issued by the Forest Tribunal. The orders, as above, has been issued with reference to the provisions of Section 3 (2) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 , for the specific purpose of “personal cultivation” of the petitioner herein – the successor in interest. When that be so, the possession of the petitioner is with reference to the restriction under the provisions of the Act, under which the notification at Ext.P1 has already been issued in the year 2005. It is also to be noticed that the certificate at Ext.P2 has also interdicted the petitioner from cutting the trees and using the area for a “non-forestry purpose”. Such a direction has been issued only because, under the provisions of the , the property continues to be a private forest and the petitioner is in possession of the property on the basis of the orders issued under (2) of the . In my opinion, the prayer made by the petitioner for a consideration of the application for cutting and removing the tress in 31 cents of land cannot be independently considered.

5. This Court also notices the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Joseph v. State of Kerala [2005 (4) KLT 504], wherein a similar issue has been considered, deciding the same in favour of the State.

In view of the afore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to succeed and therefore,