IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 OP.No. 29379 of 2001(V) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.P.SUSAN, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.ISAAC, CHITTELIL HOUE, THOVARIMALA P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY, WYNAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.K.SETHUNATH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, SOUTH WYNAD DIVISION, KALAPETTA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WYNAD, KALAPETTA. 4. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (PROTECTION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER(FORESTS) SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2007, THE COURT ON 27/03/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss O.P.NO.29379/2001 V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE 'NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE' NO. CR 1296/2000 DTD. 12/06/00 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPLY NO.B1 – 4630/2000 DTD. 10/08/00 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER NOS.B/4630/2000 DTD. 26/02/01 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT IN THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DTD. 29/06/01. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- O.P.No.29379 OF 2001 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks the issuance of a direction to the second and 4th respondents to take steps to disburse amounts claimed by her as compensation due, on the basis of Ext.P2 reply given to her claim. She also claims that reasonable interest may be ordered to be given. She further seeks a direction that the damages sustained by her due to the falling of trees and obstruction to the cultivation due to the non-removal of timber from her property may be directed to be assessed and compensation paid to her. 2. According to the petitioner, she has certain immovable properties in Nenmeni in Bathery taluk and 12 Rosewood trees standing therein and belonging to the Government fell and a quantity of 21.093 m3 timber and collected from that property. She alleges that on the basis of G.O.(MS) No.33/00 F & WLD, land owners are entitled to get Rs.4,500/- per cubic metre of OP.29379/01 2 timber extracted from the land. She alleges, that amounts so due to her have not been released in spite of Ext.P1 No Objection Certificate being issued by the Village Officer. She attributes the delay to the removal of timber from various properties. 3. Voicing her claim, a notice was issued through an Advocate, to which, the second respondent issued Ext.P2 reply. In that reply, the second respondent Divisional Forest Officer affirms the fact that 12 Rosewood trees were fallen and a quantity of 21.098 m3 timber was collected from the land of the petitioner and that the timber is being dragged and kept nearby road side for delivered to depots. Going by Ext.P2, in terms of G.O.(MS).33/93 F & WLD, the land holders are entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per cubic metre of timber extracted from the property. However, the procedure adopted by the Department for granting compensation is restricted to the quantity extracted and delivered to the depot and measurement recorded therein and compensation is paid accordingly. It is stated in Ext.P2 that an amount of Rs.94,941/- has to be paid to OP.29379/01 3 the petitioner as compensation for the quantity of 21.098 m3 of timber. It is, however, stated that such compensation would be paid only after delivery of timber to the depot and based on measurement ascertained therein. 4. The delay, going by Ext.P2, is attributed to the fact that the timber extracted from the area in question were awarded to a contractor, Sri.P.K.Mohammed Basheer and that he has not completed the work and the departmental action initiated against him has not been finalised. It is pointed out that as per G.O.(MS).33/93 F & WLD, the compensation award is essentially a generosity and it cannot be treated as a right since the timber stands on Government land and the pattayam holders are duty bound to protect them. Accordingly, it is reiterated that the petitioner can have only the compensation due in terms of the G.O. and all further claims by way of interest etc. is only to be refused. OP.29379/01 4 5. Vide separate judgment rendered today in O.P.No.8719/97, the writ petition filed by the aforesaid P.K.Mohammed Basheer has been disposed of entering certain findings and directing the Government to conclude the proceedings against him, as directed therein. 6. Advertence to the statement filed by the second respondent shows, among other things, the admission and reiteration of the statements in Ext.P2 and certain other facts and statements, of which, most relevant for the purpose of this writ petition is that according to the second respondent, the petitioner's application was not accompanied by the copy of the WCS pattayam and Acquittance in TR 42 and that the petitioner has failed to produce those documents though she was reminded by the Forest Range Officer, Kalpetta on 10.8.2001. 7. If the aforesaid P.K.Mohammed Basheer had not completed the works awarded to him, it is obvious that proceedings had to be concluded against him and in fact, it was concluded by the OP.29379/01 5 Government imposing penalty. The conclusion of proceedings against him does not necessarily stand in the way to re-arrange any work left uncompleted by him and ensuring that the forest produces, including the timber, is not lost to the Government exchequer by delaying its movement from forest areas to the appropriate depots. It is insufficient in the Government and State interest to merely stack such timer side of the roads or carelessly in the forest area and leave it open to notorious activities in relation to forest produces and forest land. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that at least, as of now, the timber fell from the property claimed by the petitioner has not been moved to the appropriate depots. If that has not happened until now, that has to be done at the earliest. 8. Having regard to the contents of Ext.P2, it is directed that the amounts due to the petitioner by way of compensation, if any, in terms of Ext.P2, shall be released to her However, the claim of the petitioner for interest on such amount is refused because the petitioner, by herself, is not entitled to fall the OP.29379/01 6 rosewood trees and appropriate or sell the timber in question. She is, therefore, not entitled to treat such money due as compensation as available to her on any principle of law, on any particular date. The felling of the trees and the removal of the timber is a matter exclusively for the Government to pay. Under such circumstances, the claim for interest is refused. In the result, if the petitioner produces such relevant documents as are necessary and mentioned of in the statement of the second respondent, compensation, if any, due to her in terms of Ext.P2 shall be released within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb. OP.29379/01 7 ======================= THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J O.P.NO.29379 OF 2001 JUDGMENT 27th MARCH, 2008. =======================