IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18114 of 2007(F)
1. KEERAMPARA PANCHAYAT MATSYA KARSHAKA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, C A D DIVISION,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :14/09/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.18114 OF 2007
------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Prayers sought in this writ petition are to quash
Ext.P23 Government Order and to direct the respondents to
allow the petitioner to cut and remove the trees planted in
the leased premises, as per the Tree Patta Scheme. There is
a further prayer to restrain the respondents from
proceeding further to Ext.P23, including to evict the
petitioner from the land mentioned therein.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that,
Government had granted to the petitioner lease of 25
hectors of land lying within the reserved forest, for fish
farming, for a period of 5 years from 1.5.1994, vide
Government Order dated 13.10.1993. Ext.P4 is the lease
deed, for the aforesaid 5 years period. Subsequently, on
14.3.1996, Ext.P3 Government Order was issued, which
WP(c).No.18114/07 2
inter alia provided that extension of lease for another 5 years
can be allowed after the expiry of the current lease period, in
cases where societies such as the petitioner have made
requests in that behalf. Nothing has been placed on record
that any request has been made or that the lease has been
extended beyond 30.4.1999. Clause(7) of Ext.P3 provided
that the societies shall be permitted to plant trees on the
border of the land for preventing silting to the land leased out
for fish farming, subject to the condition that there will be no
right on the land and trees planted after the lease period and
that the societies shall not cut and remove the trees without
the sanction of the Department/Government.
3. According to the petitioner, subsequently, based on
Ext.P25 Government Order, by which a scheme for issuing
Tree Patta in non-forest Government lands in Kerala was
framed by Government and an application was made and
Ext.P10 agreement was entered into between the petitioner
and the Government. It is stated that on the basis of Exts.P10,
WP(c).No.18114/07 3
P11 order was issued by the Village Officer and Ext.P12 Tree
Patta was issued. All these documents were issued in 2005
itself. It is stated that in pursuance to Exts.P10 and P12 trees
were planted in the areas mentioned in Ext.P10 agreement.
4. In the meantime, it would appear that the petitioner
made an application for cutting and removing the trees
planted on the basis of clause (7) of Ext.P3 order dated
14.3.1996. Thereafter they filed O.P.No.12389/99 before this
court seeking permission for cutting and removing the timber
allegedly planted on the basis of clause(7) of Ext.P3. That
Original Petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment directing
the petitioner to move the authorities in terms of clause(7) of
Ext.P3 itself. Accordingly, the matter was taken up and by
Ext.P6, the request made in that behalf was considered and
the Government rejected the request. Reasons stated in Ext.P6
are reflected in paragraphs 6,7 and 8 of the order which is
extracted below for reference.
WP(c).No.18114/07 4
“On the above request, the Executive Engineer,
PVIP Division No.1, Perumbavoor in his letter read
5th above reported that the lease period of 5 years
sanctioned to the petitioner expired on
30.4.1999, but the Sanghom was continuing
occupation of the Government property for over
five years based on stay order/extension of stay
orders issued by the Hon. High Court in the OP
read above, without remitting the rent. He had
also reported the difficulty to identify the trees
stated to be planted and naturally grown up. Since
sanction accorded was for planting trees along the
borders of the reservoir in Government property
for the specific purpose of preventing soil erosion
in to the fish farming area, felling and removal of
these trees which number more than 1750
belonging to different genera would enhance soil
erosion and cause severe damage to the reservoir
WP(c).No.18114/07 5
and also to the ecology of the area.
7. The Chief Engineer, Projects-II vide letter cited
endorsed the views of the Executive Engineer.
8. Government have examined the matter in detail
and found that the request of the petitioner Shri.
Kurian Joseph to cut and remove the trees said to
be planted by the Sanghom in the leased out land
cannot be conceded to as it is difficult to
distinguish the planted and naturally grown up
trees which number more than 1750 of different
genera and felling of the same will cause soil
erosion into the reservoir and will seriously affect
the ecology of the area and as per clause 7 of th
G.O.2nd cited i.e., there will be no right to the
Sanghom/Society on the land and trees planted
after lease period and they should not cut out or
remove the plants. Hence the request in the
petition read 4th above is rejected.”
WP(c).No.18114/07 6
5. Petitioner again approached this court by filing WP(c).
No.37345/04 challenging Ext.P6. The main complaint in that
writ petition was that Ext.P6 was passed without hearing them.
Considering the said grievance, this court disposed of the writ
petition by Ext.P7 judgment rendered on 4th July, 2009
directing that, in the event the petitioner makes a fresh
representation the same will be dealt with, after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly,
representation was filed, petitioner was heard and the
Government rejected the request as per Ext.P23 order. In
Ext.P3 order the claim made by the petitioner for cutting and
removing the trees planted on the strength of clause(7) of
Ext.P3 and also those tress which were allegedly planted on
the basis of Exts.P10, 11, 12 and 25 referred to above have
been dealt with. In so far as the trees planted on the basis of
clause(7) of Ext.P3 are concerned, Government have affirmed
the view taken in Ext.P6 order. In so far as the trees allegedly
planted on the strength of Exts.P10, 11,12 and 25 are
WP(c).No.18114/07 7
concerned, it is seen that the alleged planting was long after
the expiry of the lease and that in terms of Ext.P25, the Village
Officer was to point out the vacant land to those willing to
participate in the scheme and that the petitioner planted trees
without obtaining permission. In the aforesaid background,
this writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P23.
6. First of all, although it is the case of the petitioner
that the lease was extended on the expiry of the initially
granted period on 30.4.1994, there is nothing available on
record to support to this conclusion. On the other hand, it is
the specific case of the Government as reflected in Exts.P6
and P23 Government Order that the lease period had expired
on 30.4.1999. In so far as the trees allegedly planted by the
petitioner on the strength of clause (7) of Ext.P3 order, the
reasons stated in Ext.P6 have been affirmed in Ext.P23 should
be accepted as cogent and I do not see any perversity in the
view taken. In so far as the trees allegedly planted under the
Tree Patta Scheme promulgated under Ext.P23 order are
WP(c).No.18114/07 8
concerned, since the lease period had expired as early as on
30.4.1999, planting of trees allegedly undertaken by the
petitioner on the strength of Ext.P25 is in an area, over which
they had no valid lease. If so, I cannot find fault with the
Government in refusing to grant permission to cut and remove
the trees in that area.
7. On the other hand, if as contended by the counsel for
the petitioner, it was a bona fide action of the petitioner on
the strength of Exs.P10,P11 and P12, it may be open to the
petitioner to claim damages by instituting a civil suit. However,
the petitioner cannot seek a direction to permit them to cut
and remove the timber standing in the reserved forest land.
Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WP(c).No.18114/07 9