IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WA.No. 292 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20755/2010 Dated 24/11/2010 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NEMARA, PALAKKAD. 2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, NELLIAMPATHY, NENMARA, PALAKKAD. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, FOREST AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR OF TOURISM, TOURISM DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------- KARAPARA ESTATE 'A' PADAGIRI, NELLIAMPATHY HILLS, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT MR.BABY PETER. BY SENIOR ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.292 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge permitting respondent-company to do the minimum pruning to allow sufficient sunlight to the coffee plants which are now at the yielding stage. Large extent of forest areas are under coffee and cardamom cultivation in Kerala. Those planters who hold leasehold or kuthakappattom rights and are engaged in planting are allowed to do pruning operation which is to enable plants and the crop to get sufficient light and air. The whole process is called shade tree regulations and this is all what the Single Judge has permitted. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants submitted that the respondent acquired leasehold rights in respect of the property only in the year 1996 and the said title itself is hit by the Forest Conservation Act. According to the Additional Advocate General, the respondent's estate is also covered by the report of the Central W.A. 292/2011 2 Empowered Committee constituted by the Honourable Supreme Court and he has referred to Ext.P9 report wherein of course respondent's right to regulate shade is not dealt with. We do not think there is any need for us to consider in this Writ Appeal the validity of the assignment deed by which respondent got the rights because the learned Single Judge has not gone into any question except the right of the respondent to carry out pruning operations as part of shade tree regulation as the person in possession and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, the State or it's agencies need not have any apprehension that their rights under the statute are controlled under the judgment. If shade tree regulation is not permitted, certainly the same will affect output of the crop of the season. We, therefore, feel that the learned Single Judge rightly permitted shade tree regulation by the respondent to protect the crop. However, the Forest officials or officials of the Department of Agriculture are free to oversee the operations so that excess cutting over and above required for protecting crop is not done. Writ Appeal is disposed of leaving freedom to the appellants to take W.A. 292/2011 3 whatever is the action to protect and preserve the interest of the State in accordance with law but subject to the above right of the planter in possession. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms