JUDGMENT : The subject issue raised in the writ petition arises under the Land Assignment (Regularization of Occupations of Forest Lands prior to 1-1-1977) Special Rules, 1993 (‘Special Rules, 1993’ for short), the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 (‘Act, 1986’ for short) and other Forest Laws, which would be deliberated hereafter. 2. The material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are summarised as follows: The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of 1 Hectare 41 Ares and 65 Sq. meters of land comprised in Re-Sy. Block 3, Field No. 386 of Vannappuram Village, Idukki District. He is represented by his power of attorney. According to the petitioner, his father was assigned with the said land as per Exhibit P2 patta No. 867/2001 issued by the Special Tahsildar, Land Assignment, Karimannoor, for the purpose of cultivation of rubber trees. Petitioner's father settled the property in his favour as per Exhibit P3 settlement deed No.956/2014 of the office of the Sub Registrar, Karikkode along with trees standing in the property. According to the petitioner, the rubber trees have become dead from tapping and the same has to be re-planted. It is submitted that there are a few trees grown subsequent to the assignment of the land by the Government and the rubber trees can be re-planted only if other trees are cut and removed along with the rubber trees. 3. It is also submitted that the Divisional Forest Officer, Kothamangalam Division, Ernakulam District and the Forest Range Officer, Thodupuzha Range, Idukki District, respondent Nos 1 and 2 are obstructing the cut and removal of other trees standing in the property; and even though petitioner has submitted Exhibits P5 and P6 representations before the Village Officer, Vannappuram Village and the Divisional Forest Officer, Kothamangalam Division, respondent Nos. 3 and 1 respectively, no action is initiated for granting permission to the petitioner to cut and remove the said trees. 4. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a declaration that he is entitled to cut and remove the trees standing in his property; and for a consequential direction to respondents 1 and 2 to grant permission to the petitioner for cutting and removing the trees along with the rubber trees standing in the petitioner’s property. 5. 4. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a declaration that he is entitled to cut and remove the trees standing in his property; and for a consequential direction to respondents 1 and 2 to grant permission to the petitioner for cutting and removing the trees along with the rubber trees standing in the petitioner’s property. 5. The Divisional Forest Officer has filed a counter affidavit refuting the claims raised by the petitioner, and it is submitted that in Exhibit P2 patta itself, the trees standing in the property at the time of issuing patta is clearly mentioned and as per the first condition, the full right over all the forest trees within the grant and specified in the schedule vests in the Forest Department; and the assignee is bound to take care of all such trees standing on the land at the time of assignment or that may come into existence subsequent to it. Therefore, according to the Divisional Forest Officer, the petitioner does not have any right over the trees which are specifically mentioned in the patta, and they belong to the Kerala Forest Department. 6. It is further stated that the land is assigned under the provisions of the Special Rules, 1993 and the expression ‘land’ is defined under Rule 2(f) of Special Rules, 1993 to mean the Forest land subjected to joint verification as defined in sub-clause (e) and Cardamom Hill Reserve land which are converted for non-cardamom cultivation prior to 1-1-1977 in Idukki District which have been transferred from Forest Department to Revenue Department, and covered in the Resurvey Records; and list of lands recommended to Government of India for concurrence under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (Central Act 69 of 1980), but does not include lands in wildlife Sanctuaries. 7. It is further submitted that joint verification referred to in the said Rules mean verification of forest lands conducted by the Revenue authority to establish eligibility for regularization of occupation of the said lands prior to 01.01.1977. It is further pointed out that ‘regularization of occupation’ means regularization of occupation prior to 01.01.1977 of forest land and lands in Cardamom Hill Reserve of Idukki District. Therefore, according to the respondents, it is quite clear and evident that the land assigned to the petitioner is forest land occupied by the petitioner. 8. It is further pointed out that ‘regularization of occupation’ means regularization of occupation prior to 01.01.1977 of forest land and lands in Cardamom Hill Reserve of Idukki District. Therefore, according to the respondents, it is quite clear and evident that the land assigned to the petitioner is forest land occupied by the petitioner. 8. It is also the contention of the respondent that the land assigned to the petitioner still has the status of reserved forest, and any felling of the trees by the assignee will be an offence punishable under Section 27 (1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (‘Act, 1961’ for short). It is also contended that the land under joint verification was not dereserved before assigning the same under the provisions of the Special Rules, 1993 under which patta is issued to the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that the Government as well as the petitioner is bound to observe those undertaking and the conditions stipulated in the Rules. 9. It is predominantly contended that as per the provisions of the Rules and the undertaking made by the State Government before the Government of India, while taking consent to make the assignment, the land under the possession of the petitioner still continues with the status of the reserved forest under Section 19 of the Act, 1961. 10. The sum and substance of the contention is that each one of the trees specifically mentioned in Exhibit P2 patta, such as Kulamavu, anjili, and thanni, are reserved by the Government, to which petitioner is denuded from making any claim. 11. It is also pointed out that by virtue of Section 76(f) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (‘Act, 1961’ for short), the State has enacted the Kerala Forest (Prohibition of Felling of Trees Standing on Land Temporarily or permanently Assigned) Rules, 1995 (Rules, 1995’ for short), and as per Rule 3 of the Rules, 1995 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. 12. 12. Further it is submitted that Rule 4 of the Rules, 1995 makes it clear that no person shall fell, lop, cut or maim or otherwise maltreat any tree which is the property of Government without prior sanction in writing granted by the Divisional Forest Officer having jurisdiction over the area. Other contentions are also raised based on the aforequoted provisions of Laws. The sum and substance of the contention is that the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief sought for in the writ petition. 13. As per the direction issued by this Court on 19.07.2022, learned Special Government Pleader has filed a memo along with the report of the second respondent showing the details of the other trees standing in the property of the petitioner; out of which 77 are anjili trees, and in terms of the conditions in Exhibit P2, anjili, Kulamavu and thanni are liable to be preserved by the petitioner, since it is the property of the Government. 14. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Saji Varghese Kakkattumattathil and the learned Special Government Pleader for the Forest Sri. T.P. Sajan, and perused the pleadings and material on record. 15. The question that emerges for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to cut and remove the trees specifically earmarked in Exhibit P2 patta. There is no dispute with respect to the patta issued to the predecessor in title of the property of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that patta is issued in form No.4 and para 7 thereto specifies that identified forest trees viz., teak, rosewood, sandalwood, blackwood, ebony etc. and those mentioned in the Act, 1986, in the land shall be accounted and preserved by the Forest Department. According to the petitioner, apart from the trees mentioned above, as per Section 2(e) of the Act, 1986, the term ‘tree’ is defined to mean any of the following species of trees, namely; Sandalwood, Teak, Rosewood, Irul, Thempavu, Kampakam, Chempakam, Chadachi, Chandana vempu and Cheeni. The point raised by the petitioner is that apart from the trees prescribed under the Special Rules, 1993 and the Act, 1986, all other trees can be cut and removed by the petitioner. The point raised by the petitioner is that apart from the trees prescribed under the Special Rules, 1993 and the Act, 1986, all other trees can be cut and removed by the petitioner. However, the contention advanced by the learned Special Government Pleader is that the Act, 1961 empowers the State Government to make rules to protect and preserve other trees, by publication in the Gazette. 16. Attention of this Court was invited to Section 76 of the Act, 1961 dealing with ‘additional power to make rules’; and Section 76(f), specifies that “to regulate-or prohibit the felling, lopping, cutting, maiming or otherwise maltreating of trees standing on land temporarily or permanently assigned, the right of Government over which has been expressly reserved in the deed of grant or assignment of such land;”. 17. It is further submitted that by virtue of the powers so granted, the State Government made the Rules, 1995. Rule 3 thereto dealing with ‘the trees to be absolute property of Government’, stipulates that 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. 18. The contention advanced by the learned Special Government Pleader is that on a conjoint reading of the provisions of laws discussed above, it is clear that the Government is entitled, as of right, to expressly reserve in the deed of grant or the order of assignment, the trees which are to be preserved by the assignee. Therefore, since in the patta, three species of trees are specified, the petitioner is not entitled to cut and remove those species of trees standing in the property at the time of issuance of the patta and subsequently grown. 19. I have evaluated the rival submissions made across the bar. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner has a contention that only the trees specifically prescribed as per the Special Rules, 1993 and the trees reserved under the Act, 1986 alone can be restricted from cutting and removing by the assignee or his successor in title, I am of the view that going by the provisions of the Rules, 1995 discussed above the contention so advanced by the petitioner has no force or basis. Therefore, when the Government is vested with ample powers to specify any tree by virtue of the powers conferred under the Rules, 1995 and those species of trees are included in the patta granted to the petitioner, it is the absolute property of the Government by virtue of the Rules, 1995 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to cut and remove the same. 20. It is quite clear and evident that the property in question is forest land and the petitioner could secure patta as per the Special Rules, 1993 due to the regularization of the occupation of forest prior to 01.01.1977 after securing necessary concurrence under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. 21. The contention advanced by the petitioner based on the order of assignment on registry in form No.4 of the Special Rules, 1993 that only those trees mentioned in paragraph 7 of the patta and the trees mentioned in the Act, 1986 are only reserved trees and therefore, the inclusion of three species of trees specifically in the patta by the Tahsildar is violative of the provisions of law, cannot be sustained under law. This I say because, as per para 7 of form No.4 dealing with order of assignment, the Special Rules, 1993 is intended to create prohibition on the authority issuing patta from preserving the trees and accounting for the same exclusively specified in the form. It is an imperative requirement of law, for which any specific entry in the patta is not required at all. 22. Therefore, that by itself will not detain the authority to include any species of tree in the patta by virtue of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1995 discussed above. It is an imperative requirement of law, for which any specific entry in the patta is not required at all. 22. Therefore, that by itself will not detain the authority to include any species of tree in the patta by virtue of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1995 discussed above. Thinking so, the contention advanced by the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled, as of right, to cut and remove the trees on the basis of Section 4(6) of the Act, 1986, which was brought into the statute book as per the Amendment Act, 2003 on and with effect from 05.09.2003, which stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in the section or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court, the owner of any land shall have the right to cut or cause to be cut any tree, other than a tree as defined in clause (e) of Section 2, standing on such land, without obtaining a permission under the Section, cannot therefore stand the scrutiny of law. 23. In my considered opinion, Section 4 of the Act, 1986 creates restriction on cutting of trees without the previous permission in writing of the authorised officer; but, that by itself is not an absolute provision to interfere with the power vested with the State and its officials from creating restrictions over the trees from being cut and removed in terms of the provisions of the Act, 1961 and the Rules, 1995 thereto. 24. The patta is issued by the Tahsildar in form No.6 of the Rules, 1993 as prescribed under Rule 9(3) of the Special Rules, 1993. Statutory mandatory conditions incorporated in the patta issued in form No.6 makes it clear that the full right over all the forest trees stipulated to be accountable within the grant and specified in the schedule vests with the Forest Department of the Government and the assignee is bound to take care of all such trees standing on the land at the time of assignment or that may come into existence subsequent to it. 25. 25. This question was considered by the Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Duti Sahu and others [ (1997) 3 SCC 501 ] in the anvil of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and it is held that restrictions on dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purposes in the assignment of land granted by the State Government was held to be valid. It is further held therein that in the lands assigned to the party, trees are standing and in terms of the grant made to them, the trees belong to the Government; and under those circumstances, for the reason that it is a reserved forest area, since the grant was made only for the purpose of cultivation, the respondents therein have no manner of right, whatsoever, to deforest the land and to cut and carry the trees belonging to the Government, much less without the permission of the authority. 26. The issue has also to be considered from a constitutional angle also. Article 48A in part IV of the Constitution of India dealing with ‘directive principles of State Policy’ a duty is cast upon the State for ‘protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife’, of the country. So also, as per Article 51A of part IV-A of the Constitution of India dealing with the ‘fundamental duties’, every citizen of India is enjoined with a duty to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures. The said question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in One Earth One Life v. Ministry of Environment and Forests & Ors. [ 2018 (4) KHC 827 ], in which it is held as follows: 16. The State Government has enacted the Kerala Forest (Prohibition of Felling of Standing Trees of Land Temporarily or Permanently Assigned) Rules, 1995 (herein after referred to as "the 1995 Rules"), Assignment Special Rules, 1993 and also the Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 and this Court while referring to these enactments, in The Divisional Forest Officer, Malayattoor and Others v. P. M. Jalal and another, reported in 2015 (5) KHC 468 : 2015 (2) KLD 882 : 2015 (4) KLT 566 : 2015 (4) KLJ 499 : 2016 CriLJ 2583 indicated that the three statutes operate for three different objects and purpose. For the land covered under the Special Assignment Rules, 1993 both the Preservation of Trees Act and also the 1995 Rules apply, with respect to the trees covered thereby. Therefore, the assignee is bound by the terms of the patta and is also required by law to preserve the trees mentioned in the patta notwithstanding that they may not be covered by the Preservation of Trees Act, since cutting of trees would result in penal consequences for the violator, under the Kerala Forest Act. The Court observed that the objective of these enactments is for the preservation of ecological balance and protection of soil, which in turn will have direct bearing on the sustenance and protection of environment and forest wealth. Therefore, the objective of this Court should be to prevent wanton waste of forest and strict interpretation against the violators would be in public interest.” 27. Again, this question was considered by a learned single Judge of this Court in Rajan Gopalan and others v. Divisional Forest Officer, Kothamangalam and others [judgment dated 15.12.2020 in W.P.(C) No. 23242 of 2020] and held that the trees earmarked in the property and the species so specified grown subsequently are also liable to be preserved by the assignee of the land and its successor. 28. In Nature Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala [2000 KHC 847], it was held that the assignment document makes it abundantly clear that full right over all the trees continue to vest in the Forest Department and the assignee is made bound to protect not only the standing trees but also those that may come up subsequently, and thus an element of protection of standing trees and afforestation is inherent in the Patta. 29. This question was again considered by a learned single Judge of this Court in the judgment in Divisional Forest Officer v. Jalal [ 2015(4) KLT 566 ]. After discussing the various provisions of the laws discussed above and the principles of law evolved in the various judgments of this Court, it is held as follows at paragraph 14: “14. In the light of above, with respect to the land covered by patta issued under the Special Rules, the 1995 Rules also apply. Otherwise, there was no purpose in mentioning such trees specifically in the Schedule. In the light of above, with respect to the land covered by patta issued under the Special Rules, the 1995 Rules also apply. Otherwise, there was no purpose in mentioning such trees specifically in the Schedule. Hence, cutting, removal and transportation of atleast two species of trees, though they are not covered by the Preservation of Trees Act are cognizable as an offence under 1995 Rules and thereby under the Forest Act also. This legal position has not been taken note by the court below. Hence, the finding of the court below to the above extent relying on the Preservation of Trees Act alone, is not legally sustainable and is a manifest error committed by the court below.” Therefore, taking into consideration the legal aspects involved in the subject issue raised by the petitioner, I am of the undoubted opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to get any reliefs as are sought for in the writ petition and therefore, they are declined. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate statutory authority seeking permission to cut and remove the said species of trees earmarked in Exhibit P2 patta in terms of law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above observation.