IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 33078 of 2006(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SAJI, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, ASARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, AYMANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.TOMY SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. TAHASILDAR, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. RANGE OFFICER, MARAYUR, MARAYUR VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.33078/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DT. 20.5.03. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE PATTA NO.3321 DT. 7.4.66. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE PATTA NO.1761 DT. 15.1.70. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE PATTA NO.2546 DT. 8.2.66. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE PATTA NO.2846 DT. 11.3.96. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 11.12.03. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 1.11.04. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO,.B3-1188/05 DT. 22.1.05. EXT.P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B3-5309/05 DT. 20.4.05. EXT.P10:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 14.11.05 IN WPC. NO.14032/05. EXT.P11:- COPY OF THE SURVEY REPORT DT. 27.9.06. EXT.P12:- COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DT. 30.10.06. EXT.P13:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 2.11.06. EXT.P14:- COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 12.11.07. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 33078 OF 2006 K -------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a power of attorney holder of certain persons under Ext.P1. Exts.P2 to P5 are Pattas claimed to be that of persons from whom the petitioner has obtained power of attorney. According to petitioner, under Ext.P1, he is in possession and enjoyment of 16.93 Acres of land. Petitioner filed Application in the prescribed form to cut and remove eucalyptus trees from the land. That Application was not acceded to. Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). No.14032/05 culminating in Ext.P10 Judgment. This Court in Ext.P10 Judgment took note of the contention of the Forest Department that the petitioner has claimed right to cut and remove trees from more extent than that is covered by the Pattas, and that the area additionally claimed, covers a portion of the eucalyptus plantation of the Forest Department. It is also noted therein that the claim of the petitioner that there was a joint WPC.33078/06 K 2 survey, is denied by the Range Officer. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was disposed of directing the fourth respondent Range Officer, to consider and take a decision on the application of the petitioner. It was ordered that the petitioner was entitled to get transit permit to cut and remove the trees from the area admittedly covered by the Pattas. It was further ordered that the fourth respondent Range Officer, is free to reject the application for permit, to the extent the claim is made for cutting and removing the trees standing in the plantation raised by the Forest Department. It was also directed that the dispute regarding the area covered by the plantation and the area covered by the Pattas shall be resolved by the Officials of the Forest Department, if necessary, with the assistance of the Revenue Officials. Accordingly, a joint survey was conducted and the Report is produced as Ext.P11. However, by Ext.P13, the Forest Range Officer rejected the application. Petitioner challenges Ext.P13 and seeks a direction to issue transit pass for cutting and transporting the trees covered by Exts.P2 to P5 Pattas. In WPC.33078/06 K 3 Ext.P13, it is stated that from 1975 onwards, the property is in the possession of the Forest Department. It is also stated that no original documents were produced and it is found that the application cannot be allowed. A Statement also is filed on the same lines by the third respondent, wherein it is stated, inter alia, that the land in question is part of the eucalyptus plantation of the Forest Department from 1975 onwards. It is stated that the petitioner was not having the original pattas. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner relies on Ext.P11 Report. He would submit that in Ext.P11 it was found that there was no forest land and there was no reason to deny the application for cutting the trees in question covered by the Pattas. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader for Forest pointed out that the land in question is in the possession of the Forest Department from 1975 onwards and the petitioner was not able to establish the right with reference to the original records. In paragraph 8 of the Statement, it is stated as follows: WPC.33078/06 K 4 "After the joint inspection, the Forest Range Officer, Kanthalloor as per his letter No.KRA 310/2003 dated 2.11.2006 informed the petitioner about the result of joint inspection and informed him that the area is part of eucalyptus plantations raised by the Forest Department during 1975 and that he has taken up the matter with Sub Collector, Devikulam and District Collector, Idukki for conducting the detailed enquiry by making available the original survey records." 3. It is pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader that an Appeal lies under Section 7 of the Preservation of Trees Act against Ext.P13. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I feel that the petitioner should be relegated to prefer an Appeal against Ext.P13 order before the Appellate Authority. If the petitioner prefers an Appeal within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, the Appellate Authority will consider the Appeal on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the meantime, the enquiry pending before the District Collector referred to in paragraph 8 of the Statement, WPC.33078/06 K 5 shall be concluded within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.