Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013 12TH MAGHA 193 WP(C).No. 14168 of 2012 (U) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MARY VARGHESE AGED 5 YEARS W/O.VARGHESE, KALLIRUKKUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MULAYAM.P.O. MULAYAM VILLAGE, VALAKKAVU DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADVS.SRI.P.G.SURESH RESPONDENT(S) : ------------------------- 1. THE RANGE OFFICER FLYING SQUAD RANGE OFFICE, ELAMTHURUTHY, PUTHOOR.P.O. KUTTANELLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 014.
2. THE FLYING SQUAD DFO ERNAKULAM.682 011.
3. DEPUTY RANGER MANNAMANGALAM FOREST STATION, MANNAMANGALAM.P.O. MANNAMANGALAM, THRISSUR-680 014.
4. FOREST RANGER OFFICER PATTIKKAD RANGE, P.O.PATTIKKAD THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 652.
5. D.F.O.THRISSUR DISTRICT, P.O.AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 003.
6. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. * ADDL. R7 TO R10 IMPLEADED : R7. THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR, P.O.THRISSUR,THRISSUR DISTRICT. WP(C).No. 14168 of 2012 (U) R8. THE VILLAGE OFFICER MULAYAM VILLAGE, VALAKKAVU, P.O.MULAYAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R9. ANTONY, AGED 5 YEARS, S/O.PORINCHU, ELUVATHINGAL HOUSE P.O.KODANNOOR, KODANNOOR DESOM, KODANNOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R10. SHIJO JOSEPH, AGED 3 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, PAPPADIYIL HOUSE P.O.ASHARIKKAD, MULAYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADDL. R7 TO R10 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17 07/2012 IN IA 9649/2012. R BY SRI.THOMASKUTTY, SPL. GOVT. PLEADER FOR FORE ADDL. R9 & R10 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BP WP(C).No. 14168 of 2012 (U) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TITLE DEED. EXHIBIT P2- A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BANK TAX RECEIPT. EXHIBIT P3- A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BANK DOCUMENT OF EXHIBIT P1. EXHIBIT P4- A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE. EXHIBIT P5- A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SKETCH. EXHIBIT P6- A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT. EXHIBIT P7- A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT TO THE RANGER. EXHIBIT P8- A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PERMISSION ISSUED BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PATTIKAD TO TRNASPORT THE TREE. EXHIBIT P9- A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWS PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R1(a): COPY OF STATEMENT DT 12/6/2012 GIVEN BY SRI.E.P. ANTONY THE WONER OF THE TIMBER MILL. ANNEXURE R1(b): COPY OF THE STATEMENT DT 12/6/2012 GIVEN BY SRI. SHIJO JOSEPH, THE TIMBER AGENT. ANNEXURE R1(c): A ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE PROPERTY WHERE THE ROSE WOOD TREE STOOD. ANNEXURE R1(d): COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DT.13/6/2012. ANNEXURE R1(e): COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DT. 14/6/2012. ANNEXURE R1(f): COPY OF FORM 1 REPORT DT 15/6/2012 IN OR NO. 4/2012. ANNEXURE R1(g): COPY OF MAHAZAR REPORT ON 28/92012. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE BP P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
--------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No. 14168 of 2012 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2013 JUDGMENT The cutting and removal of a rose wood tree by the petitioner from the property, was intercepted by the 1st respondent alleging that the same was cut and removed from the forest, leading to consequential proceedings which in turn are under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, he is the owner of the property covered by Ext.P1 title deed and the property described in the schedule is having an extent of nearly 3.24 Ares comprised in Survey No. 615/5 of Mulayam Village of Thrissur District. Ever since the execution of the sale deed the petitioner is enjoying the property with absolute ownership and exclusive possession. Ext.P2 is the basic tax receipt and Ext.P3 is the prior deed which shows the flow of title. The possession of the petitioner over the property has been duly certified by the Village Officer (8th respondent) vide Ext.P4.
3. The petitioner with an intend to effect construction of his W.P.C. No. 14168 of 2012 -2- house and such other requirements, sought to cut down the rose wood tree from his property and appropriate authorities were moved in this regard. Ext.P5 is the sketch, while Ext.P6 is the report of the Village Officer, showing that the property does not form part of the vested forest or that the tree stands in the property which does not come under forest area. The 3rd respondent/Deputy Ranger after getting convinced over the factual circumstance submitted Ext.P7 report to the 4th respondent and it was after considering the relevant facts and circumstances that Ext.P8 sanction was given to cut and remove the rose wood tree. Based on the sanction obtained, the petitioner cut and removed the rose wood tree and the same was taken to a nearby sawmill. It was at this point, that the 1st respondent intervened and the rose wood tree was seized alleging some forest offence in this regard. This in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.
4. The 1st respondent has filed a statement dated 29.6.2012 seeking to sustain the course of action referring to some discrepancies in the description of the extent of property as covered by Ext.P1 title deed and as it appears elsewhere. Based on such discrepancy it is contended that the rose wood tree cut W.P.C. No. 14168 of 2012 -3- and removed by the petitioner is from a Puramboke land lying adjacent to the petitioner's property The additional 7th respondent, i.e the concerned Tahsildar has filed a counter affidavit dated 10.1.2013, after verification of relevant facts and figures including the basic tax register in respect of the properties covered by Sy.No.615/5 of the Mulayam Village. Paragraph 3 to 7 of the said affidavit read as follows: "3. The petitioner submitted an application for possession certificate of the above land to produce the same before the Forest Range Officer, Mannamangalam to cut down the rose wood tree situated in the above land comprised in Sy. No. 615/5 of Mulayam Village, Thrissur Taluk. After conducting site inspection and verifying necessary documents, the Village Officer, Mulayam had issued possession certificate to Smt. Mary, W/o. Varghese, Kallirikkumparambil to the land including 03.24 ares land in Sy. No.615/5 in which the rose wood tree was situated as per Certificate No.1231/2012 dt. 30.5.2012.
4. On the basis of the Possession Certificate issued by the Village Officer, Mulayam and after conducting necessary verification, the Forest Range Officer, W.P.C. No. 14168 of 2012 -4- Pattikkad has issued permission to cut down the rose wood tree and the tree had been cut and removed to the saw mill.
5. It is submitted that an extent of 03.24 ares of land comprised in Sy. No.615/5 of Mulayam Village is in the possession and enjoyment of Smt. Mary, W/o. Varghese, Kallirikkumparambil, Mulayam Village. Smt. Mary had submitted an application before the Village Officer, Mulayam to issue a possession certificate after physical verification of the land.
6. As requested by the Forest Range Officer, Mannamangalam, the Village Officer, Mulayam had prepared a sketch of Survey 615/5 in which the veetti tree was standing. The said land is under the possession and enjoyment of Smt. Mary and the land is not included in forest/NRF land.
7. The land having an extent of 0.0324 ha. Comprised in Sy. No. 615/5P of Mulayam Village is under the possession and enjoyment of Smt. Mary, W/o. Kallarikumparambil Varghese".
5. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the concerned respondents as well.
6. Going by the contents of the counter affidavit filed by W.P.C. No. 14168 of 2012 -5- the 7th respondent, it is seen that the rose wood tree which was cut and removed by the petitioner was standing in the property having an extent of 03.24 Ares of land in Sy.No.615/5 of the Mulayam Village, which is exclusively owned and possessed by the petitioner. This being the position, the stand taken by the 1st respondent as revealed from the statement filed earlier does not have any factual basis.
7. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent or the concerned officer who is in custody of the wooden logs seized from the petitioner, to have the same released to the petitioner which shall be done at the earliest, at any rate within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is allowed to the said extent. No cost. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. Kp/-