IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32874 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.J.JOHN, S/O.JOSEPH, OMBALAMALAYIL, KINGINIMATTOM.P.O, KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.T.R.SADEESAN SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH RESPONDENTS: -------------------- 1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, THRISSUR. 2. THE DEPUTY RANGER, FOREST STATION, MAYANNOOR, WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. * 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR (Addl. 3rd RESPONDENT IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER JUDGMENT DATED 14/11/2008) BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. RENJITH THAMPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.32874 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 14th November, 2008 J U D G M E N T The District Collector, Thrissur is suo motu impleaded as additional 3rd respondent. 2. Petitioner is the Manager of a Rubber estate owned by Sri.Unnikrishnan Kartha. Sri.Unnikrishnan purchased 6.08 ¼ acres of rubber plantation in Thalappally Taluk. It seems that the original owners acquired title to the property by Exhibit P1 sale deed issued under the Kerala (Vesting and Assignment of Ecologically Fragile Land), Rules, 2007. Petitioner submits that erstwhile owners had applied for and obtained permission from the rubber board for planting rubber trees and thereafter Sri. Unnikrishnan Kartha is maintaining the rubber plantation on acquiring the title to the property. It is the further contention that previous owners had planted teak trees in certain areas where the rubber trees had been removed during the year 1988-89 W.P ( C) No.32874 of 2008 2 and Sri.Unnikrishnan Kartha had planted some teak trees in the year 1988-89. The said teak trees along with some rubber trees planted therein were cut down in October 2007 itself and thereupon the Forest Officials registered ORNo.3/07 in respect of the trees which were cut alleging offence under Section 27(a) of the Forest Act 1961 and Kerala Forest (Prohibition of Felling of Trees Standing on land Temporarily or Permanently Assigned) Rules 1995 and Rules 3 and 7 of the Kerala Forest Rules, 1975. Petitioner submits that forest offence would not lie in relation to the cutting of teak trees. Nevertheless the timber from the said teak trees were ultimately entrusted to the petitioner on a motion made by him, before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wadakkanchery claiming interim custody of the trees. Exhibit P3 shows that 49 logs had been valued at Rs.2 lakhs. Timber logs are therefore now entrusted to the petitioner on a kaichit executed in that behalf pursuant to the orders issued by the Magistrate Court. Petitioner tried his best to transfer the timber logs, but this requires a pass. Such pass has not W.P ( C) No.32874 of 2008 3 been issued and it is in this regard petitioner approached this court seeking appropriate reliefs. 3. On instructions, Mr.Renjith Thampan, learned Special Government Pleader submits that the issue as to whether the petitioner or the owner of the property is entitled to ownership of the teak trees is a matter which is currently referred to the District Collector under the Kerala Forest (Prohibition of Felling of Trees Standing on land Temporarily or Permanently Assigned) Rules 1995. He therefore submits that permission could be granted to transport the same only after the District Collector takes a decision. 4. I heard Mr.Jaju Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Renjith Thampan, learned Special Government Pleader. Since the trees have been cut and now survives in the form of timber logs and the petitioner has been entrusted the same on a temporary custody on kaichit, I do not think any purpose will be served by requiring the petitioner to detain the timber logs. Therefore pass may be issued to the petitioner to transport W.P ( C) No.32874 of 2008 4 the said consignment. But since there is a dispute as to whether the petitioner is entitled to custody of the same, it will be appropriate that petitioner furnishes an adequate security in the form of a Bank Guarantee. 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to issue to the petitioner the requisite pass in terms of the Timber Transport Rules, in respect of the 49 logs of timber valued under Exhibit P3, on the petitioner furnishing a Bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs in favour of the 1st respondent. The Bank Guarantee shall remain alive for a period of one year in the first instance. The District Collector to whom the dispute with regard to the title and ownership of the timber logs have now been referred, shall take a decision in this regard within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner and the owner of the property shall be heard by the District Collector before such a decision is taken. In the event of the decision of the District Collector be adverse to the owner of the timber logs, obviously they are entitled to pursue appropriate W.P ( C) No.32874 of 2008 5 remedies in relation thereto. Respondent will be entitled to encash the Bank Guarantee for the value of the timber logs, if ultimately a decision taken by the competent authority under the aforementioned Rules is adverse to the interests of the owner of the property. Pass may be issued by the respondent without any delay, if the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.32874 of 2008 6 W.P ( C) No.32874 of 2008 7