IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17166 of 2009(M)
1. T.BENJAMIN, OTTINKARA VEEDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
4. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, NEDUMANGAD,
5. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PALODE,
6. VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINGAMALA,
7. THE BRAEMORE ESTATES LTD., REP BY
For Petitioner :SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :23/09/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.17166 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner submits that, he purchased 10 Albeezia trees
from the 7th respondent for a total consideration of Rs.50,000/-.
According to the petitioner the trees were cut and out of the ten,
two were removed. Thereafter, producing Exts.P2 to P4, he
applied to respondents 4 and 5 for certificate and pass for its
transportation. Orders were not passed and that lead him to file
a writ petition before this court as WP(c).No.12397/09. The writ
petition was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment directing that
orders shall be passed on the petitioner’s request. Thereafter
also, though various communications were exchanged between
respondents 4,5 and 6, certificate and pass were not issued
and that lead the petitioner to approach this court again by filing
this writ petition.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 3 and
5 where they say that in respect of the estate of the 7th
WP(c).No.17166/09 2
respondent, from which the timber has been collected, is covered by
the provisions of the Kerala Grants Leases(Modification of rights)Act
1980 is applicable and that for any timber that is to be removed
from the estate, seigneorage as provided under the said Act and
the Rules is payable.
3. Although, it is the case of the 7th respondent that in the
nature of the grant that has been granted in its favour, the Act is
inapplicable and seigneorage is not payable, that necessarily
needs an adjudication of facts which will have to be done by the
authorities created under the said Act itself.
4. Be that as it may, in the light of the contention regarding
the applicability of the Act has been raised it will not be proper for
this court to direct that pass shall be issued before the issue is
adjudicated. Therefore, the relief sought for release of the timber
cannot be granted.
In view of the above the writ petition is closed leaving open
the contentions of the petitioner and also the 7th respondent
regarding the applicability or otherwise of the Act in question
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WP(c).No.17166/09 3