IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 13923 of 2003(G) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- WILSON, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O. ISRAEL, RETIRED SCHOOL TEACHER, RESIDING AT GRACE COTTAGE, MANNAMMOOLA, PEROOKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN, SRI. NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SRI. RAJAN VELLOTH, SRI. SAIJO HASSAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FORESTS) SRI. RENJITH THAMPAN. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 23478/2003 & I.A. NO. 12314/2005 IN O.P. NO. 13923/2003 DISMISSED 17/01/2008. SD/- K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20/04/1971. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 10/03/1986. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DTD. 29/04/91. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE VALUATION CERTIFICATE OF FOREST OFFICER, PARUTHIPALLY, DT. 29/04/92. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO. (MS). 542/95/REVENUE DTD. 02/11/1995. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B11-70510/92 DTD. 05/09/1997. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 03/11/1997 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT SEEKING INSTALMENT. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE CHALAN NO. 1840 AND 1841 OF 18/12/2000. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B1-4390/96 DTD. 03/03/2001. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DTD. 29/09/2001. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 20/11/2002. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE LETTER/ORDER NO. B1-92503/00 DTD. 20/03/2003. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.D.O, TRIVANDRUM DTD. 02/08/2005. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHICHAL DTD. 03/08/2005. O.P. NO. 13923/2003-G: RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES: EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B11.92503/2000 DT. 05/10/2002. EXT.R3.A.(I): COPY OF THE G.O. (MS). NO. 203/75/D DT. 24/02/1975. EXT.R3.A (II): COPY OF THE G.O. (MS). NO. 542/95/REV. DT. 02/11/1995. EXT.R3.A.(III): COPY OF THE LR. NO. 55850/U1/2000/REVENUE DT. 07/08/2000. EXT.R3.A (IV): COPY OF THE LR. NO. B1.4390/96 DT. 26/05/2000 OF TAHSILDAR, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. EXT.R3.A (V): COPY OF THE REPORT NO. 481/2002 DT. 10/09/2002 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHACHAL VILLAGE. EXT.R3. (B): COPY OF THE REPORT NO. P3.3/2001 DT. 16/11/2002 OF THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PARUTHIPALLY. EXT.R3. (C) : COPY OF THE PAGE 15 OF THE COMMERCIAL VOLUME TABLE CORRESPONDING TO ROSEWOOD. EXT.R3. (D): COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF SEIGNIORAGE RATE OF TIMBER, FIREWOOD AND OTHER FOREST PRODUCE FOR 1998-99. ANNEXURE -1: COPY OF THE G.O. (MS). 542/95/REVENUE DTD. 02/11/1995. ANNEXURE -2: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO. 55850/U1/2000/REVENUE DTD. 07/08/2000. //TRUE COPY// prv. K. M. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------- O.P NO. 13923 OF 2003 G ---------------------------------- Dated this the 17th January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: "(a) To pass a writ of certiorari or such other writ, direction or order quashing Ext.P2. (b) To pass a writ of mandamus or such other writ, direction or order directing the 3rd respondent to issue a removing certificate with respect to the trees since the full consideration has been paid by the respondents." 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner, is as follows: He was assigned 1 Acre 49 cents of land vide Ext.P1. He has also stated that the two rosewood trees at the time of assignment stand vested with the Government. Details of the trees are given. He converted the land to a rubber plantation. It is stated that the said trees were causing inconvenience to the OP NO.13923/03 G 2 plantation. He filed Ext.P2 application dated 10.3.1986 before the Tahsildar requesting issuance of possession certificate over the said trees so as to cut and remove the same. The application was kept in abeyance for a long time and ultimately the Village Officer filed Ext.P3 Report dated 29.4.1991 and by Ext.P4 the trees were valued by the Forest Officer. By Ext. P5, petitioner was permitted to cut and remove the trees. Ext.P5 is dated 2.11.1995. Ext.P5 was served on the petitioner after fixing liability. Nearly after two years, Ext.P6 communication was issued by the second respondent, District Collector on 5.9.1997 informing the Government that the petitioner did not remit the value and sales tax as fixed by the Government and seeking further orders. Petitioner filed Ext.P7 application dated 3.11.1997 before the respondents for granting him instalment facility to remit the amounts. Nothing happened. But the petitioner remitted the amounts in lumpsum (Rs.44,562/= and Rs.3,710/=). The Tahsildar gave Ext.P9 letter stating that the amount has been received and permission was granted to cut and OP NO.13923/03 G 3 remove the rose wood trees. Thereafter, it is stated that the petitioner has approached the third respondent to get permit to transport the timber to saw mill. After much delay, petitioner got Ext.P7 countersigned by the second respondent. Ext.P10 is the request given by petitioner on 29.9.2001. Thereupon, the third respondent directed the petitioner to file an application in the format provided by him. Ext.P11 application was filed in the prescribed format. While so, the petitioner received a communication from the second respondent District Collector dated 5.4.2003 refixing the value of the trees at Rs.14,82,400/= vide Ext.P12. 3. A Counter Affidavit has been filed by the third respondent. Therein, it is, inter alia, stated as follows: "The value of standing trees is estimated based on the seigniorage value approved by Government from time to time. The prevalent seigniorage value is the one declared for the year 1998 - 99, a true copy of the relevant page of which is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R3 (d). As the girth is above 185 cm. it come under OP NO.13923/03 G 4 export. Seigniorage value for export class C is Rs.2,47,440/m3." The table extracted in the Counter Affidavit shows that the amount is Rs.15,43,792/=. It is stated that the value was fixed way back on 29.4.1992. It is stated that the quantity of timber has since increased, the price also has considerably increased. Petitioner defaulted payment of the requisite value at the relevant time. Hence the value was revised as per the relevant seigniorage rate, since the value is to be determined on the date of cutting of the trees. Both the trees are healthy and are grown to a considerable extent, both in girth and height. It is further stated in paragraph 7 as follows: "Petitioner himself has admitted under para 3 of the statement of fact that the full rights over two rose wood trees standing in the said land vest in the Government. If the petitioner has any dispute over the estimated value, Government shall extract and sell the trees through its agencies as to avoid public property being reduced to any individual's advantage. Petitioner is also entitled to participate if the sale is conducted through OP NO.13923/03 G 5 Government agencies." 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for Forest. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 9.9.2005, the petitioner has been refunded the amount paid by him. Counsel for petitioner submits that the amount was fixed and it cannot be revised and he was also allowed to remove the fallen tree. 5. After having perused the contentions raised in the Counter Affidavit, I think that Ext.P12 is not liable to be interfered with, on the basis of the application filed in 1986 to cut and remove the trees in question. The value came to be refixed. Admittedly, the petitioner did not remit the amount. The trees continued to stand and grow. In 1998, the seigniorage value came to be revised. Therefore, after the rates were refixed, it was not illegal on the part of the Government to demand recovery of the amount on the basis of the revised rates fixed as per the order in 1998. It may have been a different matter if the petitioner had cut and removed the trees in time OP NO.13923/03 G 6 and prior to the 1998 GO. Admittedly, petitioner was not able to do that. Even though a Reply Affidavit has been filed, petitioner did not choose to dispute the figures or the calculations made. In such circumstances, the demand made in Ext.P12 is perfectly legal and there is no scope to interfere with the same. 6. Then the learned counsel submitted that the trees have been wind-fallen and it may be removed by the Forest Authorities. Learned Special Government Pleader for Forest would reiterate the stand of the Government as reflected in paragraph 7 of the Counter Affidavit and submits that if the petitioner is not interested in paying the amount as per Ext.P12, the Forest Authorities will remove the wind-fallen trees. Subject to recording the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. K. M. JOSEPH, J. O.P NO. 13923 OF 2003 G JUDGMENT 17th January, 2008.