SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 20637

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
KOCHAPPU – Appellant
Versus
THE RANGE OFFICER KALADY FOREST RANGE – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 5996 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.S.SUDHISH KUMAR, SRI.K.Y.TOMY, SHRI.K.B.DAYAL, SMT.PALLAVI K.B., SMT.P.USHAKUMARI, SMT.DEEPA. P.R., SHRI.BABY K.K., SMT.SONA ROMILDA PODUTHAS
For the Respondents: SRI.T.P.SAJAN, SPL.GP (FOREST)

The rights to trees planted by the assignee on assigned land vest with the assignee, not the government.

Headnote:The judgment examines the legality of the government’s claim over trees planted by the assignee on assigned land based on Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. The Court references the Division Bench judgment in State of Kerala v. Thankachan to assert that the rights to trees planted by the assignee vest with the assignee, not the government. The court rules against the respondent's position and allows transportation of the trees by the petitioner.

Table of Content
1. assignment of land for cultivation. (Para 1)
2. government rights over trees on assigned land. (Para 2 , 3)
3. court's directive to allow transportation of trees. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner was assigned with 3 acres of land, vide Ext.P1 Patta, for the purpose of cultivation. There is no reference, whatsoever, about the existence of any teak wood tree in Ext.P1 Patta. Ext.P6 is an application, preferred by the petitioner, along with a declaration, in the year 2025, seeking transportation of the three teak wood trees from the petitioner's property. Ext.P6 application was rejected, vide Ext.P7 impugned Order, stating that the rights over the teak wood trees vest with the Government. The stand taken by the respondent official is squarely in the teeth of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. Thankachan [ 2025 (6) KLT 251 ].

2. Learned Government Pleader would submit that going by Rule 9(2) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, the right of the trees, standing in the allotted land, will vest with the Government.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, this Court finds that the stand taken by the respondent officials cannot be recognized in law. The law has been categorically laid down by the Division Bench in Thankachan (Supra). It is only in respect of those trees, which were standing in the assigned land at the time of assignment, that the Government can claim rights. The Patta issued would not reflect the existence of any such trees. Insofar as trees, which are planted by the assignee pursuant to the assignment, the rights will vest with the assignee, is the dictum laid down in Thankachan (Supra).

4. In the circumstances, the stand taken in Ext.P7 cannot be appreciated, and Ext.P7 will stand set aside. There will be a direction to the respondent/Range Officer to allow Ext.P6, so as to grant permission to the petitioner to transport the teak wood trees, which shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the respondent/Range Officer, for compliance.

The Writ Petition will stand allowed, as indicated above.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top