(B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.)
State of Kerala ___________________________________ Appellant;
v.
Jayakumar ____________________________________ Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 8116 of 2022), decided on April 2, 2024
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The instant appeal challenges the judgment and final order dated 13th May, 2022 passed by the learned Single Bench of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam whereby the CRL M. C. No. 1618 of 2022 filed by the respondent was allowed and the proceedings of the O.R. No. 3 of 2021 registered against the respondent at the Vairamony Forest Station for offence punishable under Rule-4 of the Kerala Forest (Prohibition of Felling of Trees Standing on Land Temporarily or Permanently Assigned) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter being referred as ‘Rules of 1995’) were quashed.
2. Shri Harshad V. Hameed, learned counsel representing the appellant drew the Court’s attention to Rule-3 of the Rules of 1995, which reads as below:—
“Trees to be absolute property of Government- All trees standing on lands temporarily or permanently assigned, the right of Government over which has been expressly reserved in the deed of grant or order of assignment of such land, shall be the absolute property of Government.”
He also referred to Rule-3 and Rule-5 of The Kerala Forest (Preservation, Reproduction and Disposal of Trees and Timber belonging to Government but grown on Lands in the Occupation of Private Persons) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1975’).
3. With reference to the above statutory provisions, Shri Hameed submitted that admittedly the respondent had cut the Anjily trees falling within the category of inferior species as defined in Rule-5 of the Rules of 1975 from the forest land assigned to his father. He urged that there was a specific condition No. 1 in the assignment order (patta) whereby, the land was assigned to the father of the respondent, which prohibited cutting of any tree standing at the time of assignment of the land or the trees which may grow in the land after the assignment. He contended that the view taken by the High Court that trees standing on the land had also been assigned to the respondent’s father who became the owner of these trees, is manifestly flawed in view of the clear language of the assignment order (patta) and the statutory rules.
4. E-converso, Shri Mr. Renjith B. Marar, learned counsel representing the respondent referred to The Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 (hereinafter being referred to as ‘Act of 1986’) and specifically to the definition of ‘tree’ under Section 2(e), thereof and urged that the Anjily trees are not covered under the definition of ‘tree’ as provided in the Act of 1986 and hence, the respondent could not have been prosecuted for cutting these species of trees.
5. We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order and the material placed on record.
6. We are of the firm opinion that the view taken by the High Court in the impugned order is erroneous in the eyes of law. Rule-3 of the Rules of 1995 makes it clear that the absolute ownership of all trees standing on the forest land temporarily or permanently assigned shall vest in the State Government. It is further provided under Rule-4, that sanction of the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) is essential for felling, lopping, cutting, maiming or otherwise maltreating of these trees.
7. The infringement of Rule-4 is an offence punishable under Rule-7 of the Rules of 1995. As per Rule-5 of the Rules of 1975, since the Anjily trees are an inferior species of trees, the preservation thereof is mandatory by virtue of Rule-11 of these Rules.
8. On a holistic reading of the Rules of 1995 and Rules of 1975, along with the assignment order (patta), it is clear that cutting of the trees standing on the land in question without permission from the DFO was not permissible in law. These rules are special provisions dealing with forest lands, whereas, Act of 1986 on which Shri Marar, learned counsel for the respondent heavily relied upon is a general law wherein the definition of ‘tree’ is provided. However, the definition so provided is not exhaustive.
9. Thus, we are of the opinion that the act attributed to the respondent in cutting the Anjily trees from the land assigned to his father without the permission of the DFO, definitely draws the ire of prosecution and penalty as provided under Rule-7 of the Rules of 1995.
10. Hence, the judgment and final order passed by the High Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 13th May, 2022 passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside.
12. Resultantly, the proceedings arising out of O.R. No. 3 of 2021 of Vairamony Forest Station stand resorted to the file of the Judicial First Class, Magistrate Court-Idukki to its original number.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
