IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 3622 of 2000(F) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- MONIYAMMA, W/O.LATE SOMAN, NEERANAKUNNEL, SIXTH MILE, MANKULAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ROCKEY RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 3. JAMES VARGHESE, FORMER, IDUKKI DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NOW WORKING AS ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJ R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.5970/2000 IN O.P.NO.3622/2000F DISMISSED 7/03/2008 SD/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE FIR NO.104/98 OF MUNNAR POLICE STATION. EXT.P2(A); COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DTD. 2/07/1998. EXT.P2(B): COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DTD. 2/07/1998. EXT.P2(C): COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN DESHABHIMANI DTD. 2/07/1998. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 15/01/1997 IN O.P.NO.19933 OF 1996 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN CCC.NO.309/97 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 29/09/1997 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 15/08/1999 FROM THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ========================= O.P. NO.3622 OF 2000 ========================= Dated this the 7th day of March 2008 JUDGMENT A parcel of land, 1 hectare in extent, situated Sy.No.77/1 of KDH Village, was assigned to the petitioner's husband - late Soman under the provisions of the Kannan Devan Hills (Reservation and Assignment of Vested Lands) Rules 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short). The petitioner's husband had put up a residential building therein. 2. The proprietary right over the trees standing in the lands assigned to the petitioner's husband stood vested in the State Government. Rule-18 of `the `Rules', however permitted the assignee to purchase the trees on payment of the value at the prevailing seigniorage rates. In terms of Rule-18, the petitioner's husband submitted an application dated 4.10.1995 to the District Collector for permission to cut and remove the trees standing in his property. Repeated requests for permission to cut and remove the trees on payment of seigniorage value did not meet with success. The petitioner's husband thereupon filed O.P.No.19933 O.P.3622/2000 2 of 1996 in this Court along with four other persons, who had filed similar applications under the Rules. By Ext.P3 judgment delivered on 15.1.1997, this Court directed the second respondent - the District Collector to consider the applications filed by the petitioner and others and to pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner has stated that a certified copy of Ext.P3 judgment was furnished to the second respondent on 5.2.1997 and that for not complying with the directions therein, the petitioner's husband had filed CCC No.309 of 1997 in this Court against the third respondent, who was then holding office as the District Collector of Idukki District. The petitioner has further stated that with a view to cover up the latches and negligence on his part in complying with the directions in Ext.P3, the third respondent rejected the application submitted by the petitioner's husband as per Ext.P5 proceedings dated 29.9.1997 and filed Ext.P4 counter affidavit in CCC No.309 of 1997 stating that on local inspection, it was found that the trees standing in the lands belonging to the petitioner's husband do not pose a threat to the crops or the house erected therein. It O.P.3622/2000 3 is submitted that based on Ext.P4, the contempt of court case was closed. The petitioner has further stated that on 1.7.1998, a huge tree fell on the top of the house resulting in the death of the petitioner's husband and serious injuries to her. She thereafter filed Ext.P6 representation dated 15.8.1999 before the Hon'ble the Chief Minister seeking payment of damages and also for taking appropriate action against the third respondent - the then District Collector Idukki. The petitioner has, in this Original Petition filed on 2.2.2000 prayed for the following reliefs: i) call for the records relating to Ext.P5; ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the first respondent to order an enquiry on the circumstances on which Ext.P5 was passed by the third respondent and to take appropriate action against the third respondent; iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the respondents to give expert and specialist treatments at the expenses of the respondents; iv) issue a writ, order or direction to the respondents to give ten lakhs rupees to compensate the calamity which was occurred due to the laches, O.P.3622/2000 4 negligence, dereliction and irresponsible rash act of the third respondent; v) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the 2nd respondent to take urgent steps to cut trees which are standing dangerously to the life, property and crops of the petitioner; 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent, wherein it is stated that the petitioner's husband had applied for cutting and removing 63 trees from the lands assigned to him stating that they are dangerous to the standing crops, the house and also to human life. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the other petitioners in O.P.No.19933 of 1996 had applied for cutting and removing 181 trees and that the applications filed by the petitioners in the said Original Petition related to 244 trees in all. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that as the cutting and removal of such a large number of trees would have led to ecological imbalance in the locality, the District Collector decided to inspect the site and that on such inspection, it was found that the trees do not pose any danger to the standing crops or to the residential building or to human life and that the applications filed by the petitioner's O.P.3622/2000 5 husband and others were therefore rejected. The counter affidavit proceeds to state that when the land was assigned to the petitioner's husband in the year 1995, he did not have the financial ability to pay the seigniorage value and that his subsequent conduct in seeking permission to cut and remove 63 trees discloses that the application was filed at the instance of timber merchants. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that in the monsoon of 1998, there was extensive natural calamity in the State of Kerala and that one tree standing in the lands assigned to the petitioner's husband fell down resulting in the death of Soman and caused injuries to the petitioner. The counter affidavit further proceeds to state that the said incident was a natural calamity and did not happen due to the negligence or dereliction of duty on the part of the State or its officers. It is also stated that financial assistance to the tune of Rs.75,000/= was sanctioned and disbursed to the petitioner. The third respondent, the then District Collector, Idukki has also filed a counter affidavit denying and disputing the claims and contentions of the petitioner. The third respondent has also stated that in the monsoon of 1998, a large number of persons O.P.3622/2000 6 died in the State of Kerala, especially in Idukki District and that a tree standing in the lands assigned to the petitioner's husband was uprooted in the heavy rains that lashed Idukki District. 4. I heard Sri.Augustine Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.K.Sandesh Raja, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.Johnson P.John, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it was solely on account of the negligence on the part of the third respondent, in complying with the directions issued in Ext.P3 judgment that the tree could not be cut and removed before it fell down on 1.7.1998. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P5 order was passed rejecting the application filed by the petitioner's husband for permission to cut and remove the dangerous trees standing in the lands assigned to him solely on account of malice and that the third respondent was motivated by extraneous considerations in turning down the request made by the petitioner's husband. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the third respondent had acted expeditiously and complied with the O.P.3622/2000 7 directions in Ext.P3 judgment in time and had also granted the permission sought by the petitioner's husband to cut and remove the dangerous trees, the petitioner's husband would not have succumbed to the injuries sustained by him on 1.7.1989 when the tree fell down on the house and that the petitioner also would not have suffered any injuries in the said incident. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that it was on account of reasons beyond the control of the respondents that the tree fell on the top of the petitioner's house resulting in the death of the petitioner's husband and causing injuries to the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents further contended that from the very nature of the request made by the petitioner's husband and the large number of trees involved, it is evident that the petitioner's husband and the other petitioners in O.P.No.19933 of 1996 had been put forward by influential timber merchants. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. It is evident from the averments made in paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent that there was a very clever attempt on O.P.3622/2000 8 the part of the petitioner's late husband and other petitioners in O.P.No.19933 of 1996 to cut and remove a large number of trees under the pretext that they pose a danger to human life, standing crops and to their houses. It is seen from the averments in the counter affidavit that they had jointly applied for cutting and removing 244 trees. It is not clear whether the tree that fell down on the top of the petitioner's house on 1.7.1998 was one among the 63 trees in respect of which the petitioner's husband had submitted an application under Rule 18 of the Rules. Rule 18 does not refer to cutting and removal of dangerous trees. In any case, it is borne out by the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the tree fell in the heavy rains that lashed the State in the night of 30th June 1998, and that the respondents cannot be held liable for the mishap that occurred on that day. It is seen from Ext.P2 Newspaper report produced by the petitioner that in Idukki District alone 300 houses were damaged, 60 houses were completely destroyed and thousands of trees were uprooted and a large number of persons met with untimely death in the heavy rains that lashed the State in June 1998. The counter affidavit also discloses that a sum of Rs.75,000/- was O.P.3622/2000 9 paid to the petitioner from the State funds by way of financial assistance. On the materials available in the case, I am not persuaded to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was on account of the latches and negligence on the part of the third respondent that the tree fell on top of the petitioner's house on 1.7.1998. In that view of the matter, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in this Original Petition. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge Ext.P5 in these proceedings. The petitioner cannot take advantage of the natural calamity to assail Ext.P5 indirectly and collaterally and seek reliefs against the respondents. In the result, the Original Petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/ O.P.3622/2000 10 P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ----------------------------- O.P.NO.3622/2000 ----------------------------- JUDGMENT 7.3.2008