This writ petition is filed feeling aggrieved by the order passed under the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non Forest Areas Act, 2005 (for short, 'Act 46 of 2005').
2. The petitioner has filed an application to cut and remove trees from a private Coffee Plantation. It is the case of the petitioner that the trees are old and based on the advice of the Coffee Board the trees are required to be cut and removed. The application was considered pursuant to the directions of this Court in Ext.P7 judgment by the Forest Range Officer, Begur Range. It was declined by Ext.P8 stating that it may result in soil erosion and landslide. It is also mentioned that it may cause threat to nearby tribal colony. The petitioner preferred an appeal against Ext.P8 order before the Divisional Forest Officer, Mananthavady. The Appellate Authority affirmed the order passed by the Forest Range Officer. It is challenging this order, the writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned Special Government Pleader for the Forest and Sri.Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned counsel appearing for the additional 4th respondent.
4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the authority did not advert to Ext.P5 proceedings of the Coffee Board while passing the order. It is submitted that in the light of Ext.P5 proceedings, the trees mentioned in Ext.P3 are liable to be cut and removed.
5. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader submits that if the vegetational status of the property is altered, it will be a hazard to a number of birds and animals. It is also submitted that the property is situated on a mountain slope which is approximately 950 metres above the mean sea level.
6. Sri.Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned counsel appearing for the additional 4th respondent also would submit that this is ecologically fragile area and any permission to cut and remove the trees against the public interest.
7. The application for cutting and removing trees in non-forest areas could be granted by the competent authority only in accordance with Section 6(3) of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non Forest Areas (Amendment Act). The above section clearly indicates that no tree standing in any area of non-forest land specified in the notification shall be cut, uprooted, burnt or otherwise destroyed except on the ground that the tree constitutes a danger to life or property or is wind fallen. Therefore, merely because a favourable recommendation has been made by the Coffee Board is not a ground to grant permission to cut and remove the trees. The only exception is that the trees should be dead, fallen or standing dangerous to the life and the property. The authorities while passing impugned orders have given detailed reasoning for refusal. This Court cannot substitute those reasoning by invoking the power of judicial review. It is in order to preserve the environment cutting of the trees are regulated by the Act 46 of 2005. Therefore, the burden is on the petitioner to establish that finding in the impugned orders are unsustainable. When environmental degradation is pointed out, burden falls on the person claims for cutting of trees to establish otherwise. Therefore, I am of the view, impugned orders are in conformity within the scope of the above Act. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is able to point out any of the trees, for which permission is sought, are standing dangerous to the life and property of the petitioner, that application shall be considered and if it is satisfied that the trees are posed as danger to the life and the property, necessary permission shall be granted to the petitioner.
With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln