IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 17593 of 2006(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THANKAPPAN, S/O. LATE SHRI AYYAPPAN, MUKULEL HOUSE, PERUMPANKUTH, P.O. MANKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.BALACHANDRAN (PN) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE RANGER, FOREST RANGE OFFICE, MANKULAM RANGE, ADIMALI, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE FORESTER, MANKULAM SPECIAL DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, ADIMALI, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANKULAM VILLAGE OFFICE, MANKULAM (P.O), IDUKKI DISTRICT. R1 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FOREST) SRI. M.P. MADHAVANKUTTY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VPV WPCNO.17593/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE PATTA NO.64 OF THE AFORESAID LAND BEARING PLOT NO.435 IN KDH VILLAGE IN THE YEAR 1980. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE REVENUE RECEIPT DATED 29.07.2005 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 12.05.2006 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANKULAM VILLAGE. EXT.P3(A): COPY OF THE LOCATION PLAN OF THE 2 ROSE WOOD TREES. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 02.06.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT ON 03.06.2006. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT DATED 04.06.2006 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6(A): COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE CUT PIECES OF ROSE WOOD TREES IN QUESTION WHICH WERE SUBJECT MATTER OF INSPECTION BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22.06.2006 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE R1(A): COPY OF THE KANNAN DEVAN HILLS (RESERVATION AND ASSIGNMENT OF VESTED LANDS) RULES 1977. ANNEXURE R1(B): EXPERT REPORT BY DR.U.N. NANDAKUMAR, SCIENTIST.E1 (SILVICULTURE), KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE VPV S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17593 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT By Ext.P1 patta issued by the Government under the Kannan Devan Hills (Reservation and Assignment of Vested Lands) Rules 1977, one hectare of land was assigned in favour of the petitioner. Two rose wood trees standing on that property fell down. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application to the 1st respondent for a pass to transport the cut rose wood trees. By Ext.P6, the 2nd respondent reported to the 1st respondent that the application of the petitioner can be accepted. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with Ext.P7 memo dated 26.6.200 by the 4th respondent, wherein it is stated that the rose wood trees should not be removed from the spot and that they should not be sold or transferred. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) to call for the records leading to Exhibit P7 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction enabling the petitioner to transport the cut rose wood trees from his land; described in Exhibit P1 patta; W.P.(C)No.17593/06 2 (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to transport the cut pieces of Rose wood from his land in his ownership and possession by virtue of Ext.P1 patta to the place of his choice forthwith; (iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to issue the relevant passes if any required under the statute.” 2. The contention of the petitioner is that at the time of assignment, as is evident from the Schedule to Ext.P1 patta, there were no trees standing in the property and as per the Rules, the petitioner is entitled to cut and remove the said trees, which came into existence subsequent to the issue of patta. 3. A statement has been filed by the Forest Range Officer, Mankulam, wherein the stand taken is that the two trees are 100 and 150 years old going by its girth and therefore those trees were in existence years prior to the issue of Ext.P1 patta. It is stated that, as per Rule 18 of the said Rules, the full proprietory right over all trees standing at the time of assignment and over the reserved trees whether standing at the time of assignment or coming into existence W.P.(C)No.17593/06 3 subsequently, in the assigned area shall vest in the Government. But the assignee has a right to purchase the trees on payment of value at the prevailing seigniorage rates failing which they may be disposed of by the Collector after due publicity. An explanation is furnished to Rule 18 in the reserved tree is stated to mean the trees specified in the Schedule to the patta in Form No.6. According to the respondents, since the trees were existing in the property covered by Ext.P1 years prior to the issue of Ext.P1 patta, the trees belonged to the Government and therefore the petitioner has no right over the same. In view of the dispute, particularly, the stand of the respondents that the trees were 100 and 150 years old, I directed the respondents to produce proof of the fact that the trees were in existence even prior to the issue of the patta. Pursuant thereto, the respondents got the timber examined by an expert, whose report is produced as Ext.R1(b), wherein it is stated that the first tree was 320.4 years old and the second tree was 70.4 years old. They would therefore contend that as per Rule 18 the trees belong to the W.P.(C)No.17593/06 4 government. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Ext.P1 patta is dated 4.5.1984. It is true that in the Schedule to Ext.P1 against the details of five kinds of trees mentioned therein namely, teak, Black Wood, Ebony, Sandalwood and other reserved trees, it is entered as 'nil'. But, at the same time, the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the two trees were fallen from the property covered by Ext.P1. The petitioner has not produced any material to disprove the expert's report produced before this Court by the respondents. The expert has opined that these trees are 320.4 years and 70.4 years old. Therefore, notwithstanding the endorsement in Ext.P1 regarding the trees standing in the property, without any doubt, these two trees were in existence in the property years before the assignment. 5. Even apart from that, going by Rule 18, insofar as the same is a species of the reserved trees mentioned in the Schedule to Ext.P1 patta the same belongs to the Government even if the same came into existence subsequent to the issue W.P.(C)No.17593/06 5 of the patta. Rule 18 of the Kannan Devan Hills (Reservation and Assignment of Vested Lands) Rules, 1977 reads thus: “18. Tree value to be paid by the assignee.- The full proprietory right over all trees standing at the time of assignment, and over the reserved trees whether standing at the time of assignment or coming into existence subsequently, in the assigned area shall vest in the Government. But the assignee may purchase such trees on payment of value at the prevailing seigniorage rates failing which they may be disposed of by the Collector after due publicity. Explanation.- 'Reserved trees' means the trees specified in the Schedule to the Patta in Form No.6.” (underlining supplied) Going by the same, of course, in respect of the trees other than reserved trees coming into existence after issue of the patta, the petitioner has proprietary rights, but, as far as reserved trees are concerned whether standing at the time of assignment or coming into existence subsequently, the same shall vest in the Government. It is not disputed before me that the trees in question are rose wood trees, which would answer the description of black wood mentioned in the Schedule to Ext.P1. That being so, even assuming that the trees came into existence subsequent to issue of Ext.P1 patta, W.P.(C)No.17593/06 6 it belongs to the Government. In the above circumstances, on any count, the petitioner is not entitled to succeed in this writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.17593/06 7