The petitioner retains the right to appeal against the rejection of his application for tree removal, emphasizing the necessity of demonstrating legal possession to proceed.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ order or direction quashing Exhibit P3 order No.B1-1882/2017 dated

26.10.2017 passed by the respondent.

ii. permit the petitioner to cut and remove the Anjilee trees mentioned in Exhibit P1 application submitted to the respondent on 27.2.2017; or in the alternative;

iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction commanding the respondent to pass orders on Exhibit P1 application submitted by the petitioner within a time limit to be prescribed by this Hon'ble Court.”

2. It is submitted that the petitioner is an occupant of forest land in terms of the Kerala Land Assignment (Regulation of Occupants of Forest Lands prior to 1.1.1977) Special Rules, 1993. It is submitted that two Anjili trees situated in the property in the possession of the petitioner are causing danger to the life and property of the petitioner and his neighbours. It is stated that the trees are rotten and decayed and are in a dangerous situation. Exhibit P1 application has been submitted before the Divisional Forest Officer seeking permission to cut and remove the trees as also to for permission to utilise the wood for repairing the petitioner's own residential house. It is stated that Exhibit P2 report has been submitted by the Forest Range Officer stating that the petitioner is a person included in the list prepared after joint verification in terms of the Special Rules, 1993 and that the Anjili trees are liable to be cut and removed and sold to the petitioner at seniorage rate. It is stated that after filing of the writ petition, Exhibit P3 order has been passed by the respondent on 26.10.2017 rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not produced any document to show that he had title or possession over the property in question.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person who has been included in the list prepared after joint verification in terms of the 1993 Special Rules. It is further contended that going by the provisions of the Kerala Forest (Preservation, Reproduction and Disposal and Timber Belonging to Government but Grown on Lands in the Occupation of Private Persons) Rules, 1975, the petitioner will be entitled to have his request made in Exhibit P1 considered. The petitioner has raised a contention that the petitioner would be entitled to cut and remove trees in terms of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non- Forest Areas Act, 2005, since the trees are standing in the property in possession of the petitioner.

4. A statement has been filed by the respondent contending that the petitioner is an encroacher on forest land. It is stated that he has no right or title over the land and the Anjili trees and all other trees are standing in the reserved forest. It is therefore contended that since the petitioner could not produce any evidence to show that he was in possession of the land, the application preferred was rejected.

5. A detailed reply affidavit has been preferred by the petitioner stating that Rule 13 of the Special Rules, 1993 specifically provides that only trees as defined under Section 2 (e) of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act , 1986 would be preserved and in respect of other trees in occupied lands, the petitioner would be entitled to cut and remove such trees.

6. I have considered the contentions advanced on either side.

Exhibit P3 is an order issued by the Divisional Forest Officer on Exhibit P1 application preferred by the petitioner in terms of the 1975 Rules. The question raised is whether the petitioner has produced any evidence to show that he is entitled to the benefit of the said Rules. This, according to me, is a question of fact. In the above view of the matter, since a statutory appeal is provided from an order in the nature of Exhibit P3 by Rule 14 of the 1975 Rules, I am of the opinion that it is for the pe