Kerala High Court
Mercy John vs State Of Kerala on 21 October, 2025
WP(C) NO. 26187 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:78246
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 29TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 26187 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MERCY JOHN
AGED 62 YEARS
W/O LATE DANIEL E.S., ELAMTHURUTHIYIL, KOOVAPPILLY P.O.,
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI (DIST.), PIN - 685590
BY ADVS.
SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX
SHRI.MANU SANKAR P.
SHRI.AMAL AMIR ALI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY (FOREST & WILDLIFE)
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
KOTHAMANGALAM DIVISION, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM.,
PIN - 686691
3 ASSISTANT FOREST CONSERVATOR
SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION, SAHYASANU COMPLEX, PAINAVU P.O.,
VELLAPPARA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
4 TAHSILDAR
THODUPUZHA TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI,
PIN - 685584
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.T.P.SAJAN, SPL. GP (FOREST)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 26187 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:78246
JUDGMENT
The petitioner filed Ext.P7 application before the 2nd
respondent/Divisional Forest Officer seeking to fell a
sandalwood tree standing in his property. The same has
not been considered and disposed of, is the short
grievance of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
Exts.P1 and P2 are the prior deeds. Ext.P3 is the title
deed, Ext.P4 is the land tax receipt. Ext.P5 is the
possession certificate and Ext.P6 is the location
certificate. Ext.P8 Order is under challenge, which
states that the petitioner's application for felling the
tree can be considered, only if the status of the
property is ascertained, after producing the sketch
along with the patta, which according to the petitioner
is not available with her. Ext.P8, in other words, wants
to ascertain whether the sandalwood tree is situated in
the property covered by the patta, or in the Government
WP(C) NO. 26187 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:78246
land (tharisu bhoomi). Ext.P8 also refers to
communication issued by the Tahsildar to the Assistant
Forest Conservator referring to the above fact, based
upon which only Ext.P8 communication has been issued.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader, this Court finds that
the concern expressed in Ext.P8 is completely
irrelevant, having regard to Section 47 B of the Kerala
Forest Act is concerned. As per Section 47 B(2), if an
application is filed seeking permission to fell a sandal
tree, for any of the reasons specified in that
sub-section, the permission sought for shall not be
refused, is the statutory mandate. The proviso to
Section 47B(2) contemplates that before taking a
decision under sub-section (2), a report as to the
genuineness of the matter shall be obtained from the
District committee authorised by the Government in this
behalf.
WP(C) NO. 26187 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:78246
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites the
attention of this Court to the Kerala Forest
(Restriction on Cutting and Selling of Sandalwood trees
and Grant of Licence for possession and Transport of
Sandalwood and Sandalwood Oil) Rules, 2012. There, the
procedure is contemplated in Rule 3(6). Sub Rule 6
contemplates that the authorised Officer, upon receipt
of an application under sub-section (2) of Section 47B,
shall immediately forward the application to the
committee authorised by the Government. Rule 3(7)
enjoins that the committee shall inspect the land, and
the sandal tree and shall forward a report containing
their observations and recommendations to the authorised
officer within thirty days. On receipt of report of the
committee, the authorised officer, within fifteen days,
has to pass orders granting or rejecting permission. In
the instant case, Ext.P7 application is filed on
10/1/2022. Except Ext.P8 Order passed by the 3rd
respondent, nothing has transpired in terms of the Act
WP(C) NO. 26187 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:78246
and Rules.
5. This Court may pause for a moment in this context, to
point out that the 'genuineness of the matter' as
specifically employed in the proviso to Section 47B(2)
is only with respect to the genuineness of the ground
for exemption, under which a claim is made under sub-
section (2) of Section 47B. In the instant case, it is
the petitioner's case that the tree is required to be
felled for the purpose of construction of building for
the use of the petitioner/owner. It is the genuineness
of this particular need that is liable to be looked into
by the committee in terms of the proviso to Section
47B(2). The question as to whether the sandal tree is
lying in the property covered by the patta issued to the
petitioner's predecessor, or for the matter the tharisu
land, as conveyed by Ext.P8, has no serious
significance, in the opinion of this Court. It is
relevant to note that no notice or action, whatsoever,
has been initiated against the petitioner so far by any
WP(C) NO. 26187 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:78246
of the competent authorities, claiming that the property
in question is a tharisu land. Merely because the
revenue authorities have a confusion based on revenue
records as to whether the land in question is one
covered by patta or a Government land, the permission
sought for by the petitioner to fell a sandal tree
cannot be refused. Nor can the authorities insist the
petitioner to produce the patta issued in the year 1959
for the limited purpose of a permission under Section
47 B(2) of the Kerala Forest Act. Neither the Act nor
Rules above referred contemplate any such enquiry.
6. In the circumstances, Ext.P8 cannot be sustained and
the same will stand set aside. The committee constituted
in terms of the proviso to Section 47B(2) had already
visited the property on 8/6/2022. If the committee has
not forwarded the report on the genuineness of the need
espoused by the petitioner, the same shall be forwarded
within a period of ten days from the date of production
of a copy of this judgment before the Chairman of the
WP(C) NO. 26187 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:78246
Committee. Once such a report is received, the 2nd
respondent will stand directed to take a decision in
Ext.P7 application within a further period of ten days
from the date of receipt of such report. These time
periods are stipulated taking into account the timeline
stipulated by virtue of Rules 3, 7 and 8 of the Rules
above referred, and also, in view of the fact that the
time stipulated therein had expired much earlier. While
taking a call in Ext.P7 application, the 2nd respondent
will also take into account the title claimed by the
petitioner and the documents produced in support thereof
at Exts.P1 to P6.
With the above directions, the Writ Petition will stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
ska
WP(C) NO. 26187 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:78246
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26187/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.186/1971 DATED 18-
01-1971 OF KARIKODE SRO
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO. 1789/1996
DATED 06-07-1996 OF ARAKKULAM SRO
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED NO. 987/2021
DATED 25-10-2021 OF ARAKKULAM SRO
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.
KL06041302000/2025 DATED 20-05-2025
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAYATHOOR
DATED 27-05-2025
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH DATED 18-06-
2020 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAYATHOOR
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10-01-2022
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A1-15172013(VOL-
II) DATED 10-01-2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH
REPORT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
