Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P7 order and also seeking a direction to the 1st respondent "to realise the value of 52 trees standing in the property at the seignior age rate in force at the time of assignment" to enable the petitioner to cut and remove the said 52 trees. As per the averment of the petitioner in paragraph 2 of the Original Petition, "for the purpose of clearing the land for effective cultivation, the petitioner decided to cut and remove the 52 trees standing in the property." He submitted an application. There was a report as seen from Ext. P1 recommending the same. The Forest Range Officer assessed the value of the trees as seen from Ext. P3. According to the petitioner, he is liable only to pay the seignior age rate on the basis of Ext. P4 order and not the market rate and the value of the tree. He approached this Court with O.P. 2903/98 seeking a direction "to fix the value of 52 trees standing in the property of the petitioner in accordance with the rate specified in Ext. P4 Government order". This Court in Ext. P5 judgment pronounced at the admission stage of the Original Petition issued a direction to the Additional 3rd respondent in that Original Petition "to take a decision on the question regarding the liability of the petitioner to pay seignior age taking into consideration all relevant factors to be highlighted in an application to be preferred by the petitioner". Based on the direction the petitioner submitted Ext. P6 before the Government. Government considered Ext. P6 with all the relevant materials and passed Ext. P7 rejecting the request of the petitioner for permission to cut and remove the 52 trees at the seignior age rate. 2. The petitioner submits that Ext. P7 is illegal. Ext. P7 proceeds as if the prohibition contained in S.5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1985 is applicable to the land. The petitioner submits, as early as in 1963 the petitioner was granted permission to cultivate the land with coconut, pepper, rubber etc. From that year onwards, the property in question is not cultivated with Cardamom and therefore, it is not a Cardamom land to attract the provisions of S.5. The petitioner submits, as early as in 1963 the petitioner was granted permission to cultivate the land with coconut, pepper, rubber etc. From that year onwards, the property in question is not cultivated with Cardamom and therefore, it is not a Cardamom land to attract the provisions of S.5. Even though the land was assigned in terms of the Cardamom Registry Rules, for removal of trees the rate specified in Ext. P4 alone is applicable, ie. at the seignior age rate prevalent at the time of assignment. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to an order to allow him to cut and remove the trees by paying the seignior age rate. When the land is not thus cultivated with Cardamom, the prohibition contained in S.5 is not at all applicable to the land, the petitioner submits. Ext. P7 thus proceeds in a wrong premises. 3. It is submitted by the Government Pleader that when the Cardamom Registry Rules are applicable, the petitioner cannot cultivate the land with any other crop and it will violate the conditions of assignment which shall result in resuming the land. No tree is liable to be cut and removed in a cardamom area without permission and in such case double the value of the trees is liable to be paid by the owner of the property. Moreover, S.5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act is applicable. Therefore, the petitioner is not at all entitled to cut and remove any tree. 4. It may be true as contended by the petitioner that the land in question from where the petitioner seeks permission to cut and remove the trees on payment of seignior age rate is not cultivated with Cardamom. To attract S.5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act the land concerned need not be cultivated with Cardamom. On the other hand, the prohibition contained in S.5 is applicable "in the Cardamom hill reserve or in any other area cultivated with Cardamom". If the area is cultivated with Cardamom, and within the area if there is certain islands of properties cultivated with other crops, it cannot be said that such islands of land with other cultivation is out of purview of the prohibition contained in S.5. In other words, the word area employed' in S.5 to prohibit cutting of trees, is not the land cultivated with Cardamom, but area where cardamom is cultivated. In other words, the word area employed' in S.5 to prohibit cutting of trees, is not the land cultivated with Cardamom, but area where cardamom is cultivated. The petitioner does not have a case that the land in question is not within an area where there is cardamom cultivation. In the other hand, it is admitted before me that the petitioner's predecessor in interest got assigned the property in terms of the Cardamom Registry Rules. Therefore, the property is within the Cardamom cultivated area. So, the prohibition contained in S.5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act applies even if the property in question is not presently cultivated with Cardamom. So long as that property is within the area where Cardamom is cultivated, it cannot escape the rigours contained in S.5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act. Therefore, Ext. P7 does not proceed on the wrong premises as contended by the petitioner. 5. The petitioner further contends that the direction in Ext. P5 judgment is only to take a decision regarding the rate payable by the petitioner as value of the trees to be cut and removed. Based on the direction, Government should not have considered any other aspect. I am unable to accept that contention. Merely because a direction has been issued as contained in Ext. P5 judgment at the time of admission of the Original Petition, O.P. 2903/98, that will not take away the property in question from out of the applicability of any plenary statute, like Kerala Preservation of Trees Act. Government is, while considering the representation of the petitioner in compliance of the direction contained in Ext. P5, liable to consider the limitation imposes by other statutes as well. 6. When the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act is applicable, it is immaterial whether Ext. P4 or Ext. P5 is applicable or not. 7. Admittedly by the petitioner, he has sought for the permission to cut and remove the trees, not because such trees are dead, deceased or wind fallen. As already mentioned above he requested permission to cut and remove the trees "for the purpose of clearing the land for effective cultivation", that is a consideration out of the purview of S.5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act. 8. As already mentioned above he requested permission to cut and remove the trees "for the purpose of clearing the land for effective cultivation", that is a consideration out of the purview of S.5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act. 8. When the petitioner is thus not entitled to get an order to cut and remove the trees, there arise no question of fixation of any value at all. O.P. therefore, fails. Dismissed. No costs.