Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned a notification issued under Section 5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986, which prohibited felling of trees in an area of 60 acres in Kerala. The land had a long history under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The respondent originally claimed 3,000 acres as not being a private forest. The Forest Tribunal declared the entire 3,000 acres not private forest, but the Kerala High Court, on appeal, after considering a commissioner's report, held that only 25 acres, where cardamom was cultivated, was not private forest. The respondent then appealed to the Supreme Court, and in M.N. Sankaranarayanan v. State of Kerala (AIR 1987 SC 47), based on an admission by the State in its counter affidavit, the Supreme Court declared that 60 acres out of the 3,000 acres were not private forest. The respondent was given liberty to select any 60 acres of his choice; he selected a compact block of 60 acres. Subsequently, the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 came into force. A notification dated July 19, 1991, issued under Section 5 of that Act, prohibited felling of all trees in the area, citing adverse effects on soil erosion and timber wealth. The respondent challenged the notification before the Kerala High Court, which, in a writ appeal, held that since the 60 acres were not private forest under the Vesting Act, the Preservation Act notification was invalid. The State of Kerala appealed to the Supreme Court. The State argued that the object of the Preservation Act was to sustain forest growth and that the land in question was forest land; the respondent's admission that he permitted third parties to cut trees showed that the trees were forest trees under Section 2(e). The respondent argued that because the land was declared not private forest, the Preservation Act had no application. The Supreme Court noted the peculiar facts: the initial commissioner report had found only 25 acres under cardamom cultivation, but the Supreme Court's earlier order allowing the respondent to select any 60 acres meant that the selected compact block contained forest growth. The Court held that the object of the Preservation Act is to preserve forestation and not deforestation, and therefore the notification could not be entirely quashed. However, to protect the respondent's right to enjoy the 60 acres for cardamom cultivation, the Court directed a suitable modification of the notification. The competent authority was directed to give permission to the respondent to fell trees not covered under Section 2(e) of the Preservation Act, and if necessary, other trees to enable cardamom or other permissible plantation operations. The authority was to inspect the area in the presence of the respondent and determine which trees should be preserved and which could be felled. The State Government was directed to issue a modified notification in terms of Section 5. The appeal was disposed of with no costs.
Headnote
A) Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 - Exclusion of Cardamom Plantation - Judicial Declaration of Non-Private Forest - Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 - The High Court initially declared 25 acres not private forest based on commissioner report showing cardamom cultivation; the Supreme Court earlier, on State admission, declared 60 acres not private forest and allowed the respondent to select any 60 acres out of 3000 acres. Held that the selected 60 acres was judicially declared not a private forest under the Vesting Act. (Paras 1-4) B) Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 - Applicability to Land Declared Not Private Forest - Object of Preservation Act - Sections 2(e) and 5, Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 - Despite the prior declaration, the land contained forest growth and valuable trees; the State's notification under Section 5 prohibited felling. Court held that the Preservation Act aims to preserve forestation and prevent deforestation, and the existence of forest trees justified regulation of felling even on land not vested as private forest. (Paras 1-4) C) Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 - Modification of Notification - Balancing Rights of Landowner and Forest Preservation - Section 5, Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 - The Court directed that the notification be suitably modified: competent authority must grant permission to fell trees not covered under Section 2(e) and, if necessary, other trees to enable cardamom cultivation; authority to inspect and determine which trees to preserve; State Government to issue modified notification. Held that this balances the Act's object with the respondent's right to enjoy 60 acres. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the notification issued under Section 5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 was invalid because the 60 acres of land was not a private forest under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971; whether the notification could be sustained notwithstanding prior judicial declaration of non-private forest status given the existence of forest growth on the selected land.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by directing suitable modification of the notification under Section 5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986. The competent authority was directed to give permission to the respondents to fell trees not referred to in Section 2(e) of the Act, and if other trees were not of such value, permission could be given to fell trees to enable cultivation of cardamom or other permissible plantation operations. The authority, upon application by respondents, would inspect the area in their presence and determine which trees under Section 2(e) should be preserved and which could be felled. If any difficulty arose, parties could approach the High Court. The State Government was directed to issue a modified notification in terms of Section 5. No costs.
Law Points
- Preservation Act aims to preserve forestation and prevent deforestation
- notification under Section 5 can regulate tree felling even on land judicially declared not private forest if forest growth exists
- landowner's right to cultivate cardamom must be balanced
- competent authority to inspect and determine protected trees and allow felling of non-protected trees
- state to issue modified notification
