JUDGMENT : (Kauser Edappagath, J.) : Ext.P12 order passed by the 4th respondent rejecting Ext.P4 application submitted by the petitioner to issue pass to cut, remove and transport teak trees planted by her in her property is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is the owner of 0.072 hectares of land comprised in Survey No.1397/146/1 situated in Peechi Village. She obtained the said property by way of assignment under the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960 (for short 'the Land Assignment Act') as per Ext.P1 patta. According to the petitioner, after she acquired the right over the property as per Ext.P1, she planted around 150 teak trees therein. Since a neighbour has been complaining that the trees are a threat to his house, she decided to cut and remove them, and she submitted Ext.P4 application before the 3rd respondent seeking permission to cut the trees and to issue a pass to transport the same. The 3rd respondent asked the petitioner to approach the revenue authorities. Accordingly, she submitted Ext.P6 application seeking permission to cut and remove the teak trees before the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent rejected the Ext.P6 application as per the Ext.P12 order, which is impugned in this writ petition. 3. I have heard Smt. Sneha Rajiv, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. T.P. Sajan, the learned Special Government Pleader. 4. Ext.P6 application submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the 4th respondent mainly holding that all the trees in the assigned land vest in the Government as per the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 (for short, 'the Land Assignment Rules'). Section 3 of the Land Assignment Act deals with the assignment of Government land. Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 says that assignment of Government land shall be subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as may be prescribed. Section 8 says that all the provisions, restrictions, conditions and limitations contained in any patta or other document evidencing the assignment of Government land or of any interest therein shall be valid and take effect according to their tenor notwithstanding any law for the time being in force or any custom or contract to the contrary. Thus, as per Sections 3 and 8 of the Land Assignment Act, the assignee of Government land is bound by the restrictions, limitations and conditions prescribed in the patta or other document evidencing the assignment of Government land. Thus, as per Sections 3 and 8 of the Land Assignment Act, the assignee of Government land is bound by the restrictions, limitations and conditions prescribed in the patta or other document evidencing the assignment of Government land. 5. Ext.P1 is the patta issued to the petitioner under Rule 9(2) of the Land Assignment Rules in the Form in Appendix II. The 1st condition in Ext.P1 patta is that the full right over all the trees within the grant and specified in the schedule vests in the Government and the assignee is bound to take care of all the trees standing on the land at the time of assignment or that may come into existence subsequent to it. The teak trees are mentioned in the Schedule of Ext.P1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the restriction applies to the trees mentioned in the schedule and standing on the property at the time of assignment. I cannot subscribe to the said argument. On assignment of the Government land, the patta has to be issued to the assignee in the Form in Appendix II under Rule 9(2) of the Land Assignment Rules. Such a Form contains certain conditions. Condition Nos. (1) and (2) therein reads thus: “1. The full right over all the trees within the grant and specified in the Schedule vests in 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. 2. The assignee is bound to afford all facilities to the officers of Government in the matter of inspecting the land periodically for checking the trees referred to in condition (1)above and removing them, if necessary: 6. Ext.P1 patta also contains the above conditions. The purport of those conditions is that if the trees are one of the species mentioned in the Schedule, they would vest in the Government irrespective of the fact they were standing on the land at the time of the assignment or came into existence subsequent to the assignment, [See Manoj A.N. v. State of Kerala and Others ( 2013 (3) KHC 505 ) and Jose v. State of Kerala and Others ( 2020 (2) KHC 383 )]. Therefore, the full right over all trees within the grant standing on the land at the time of the assignment or that may come into existence after the assignment belongs to the Government, and the assignee has no right over the same. The Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act, 2005, regulates cutting and removing of trees standing on non-forest land. The object of the Act is to promote the cultivation of trees in non-forest areas of the State to increase the green cover, preserve biodiversity, arrest soil erosion and increase the availability of timber and bamboo for industry. Section 6(1) deals with the right of owners to cut and remove trees in non-notified areas in non-forest land. It says that every owner of non-forest land in a non-notified area shall have the right to cut and transport any tree, other than a sandalwood tree, standing on his land. However, the proviso to the said section says that the provision of sub-section (1) shall not apply to trees, if any, reserved by the Government at the time of assignment of such land. That apart, the non-obtante clause in Section 6(1) does not exclude the terms of the patta issued by the Government under the Land Assignment Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, the conditions mentioned in patta are binding on the assignee. As stated already, the land has been assigned by the Government to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 patta with a specific condition that the trees specified in the Schedule which were either standing in the property at the time of the assignment or may come into existence at any time in future, would vest in the Government. Thus, the trees in question are vested in the Government as per Sections 3 and 8 of the Land Assignment Act and the petitioner cannot claim ownership over them. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P12 order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.