Eldhose Varghese vs State Of Kerala & Ors.

The petitioner, who is the owner of 6.7 Ares of property in Survey No.1130/382 of Neriyamangalam Village, is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the fourth respondent vide Exts P3 to P6 towards realisation of the value of three teak wood trees allegedly cut and removed from the aforesaid property. The said property was originally assigned to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner as per Ext P2 patta. The petitioner got the said property vide Ext P2 Settlement Deed. According to the petitioner, Ext P2 patta would disclose that there were no trees standing in that property at the time of issuance of the aforesaid patta. Therefore, it is contended that the trees subsequently planted and grown there cannot be claimed by the respondents.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the State of Kerala.

In Ext P2 patta, the schedule appended thereunder would describe the existence of trees as ‘NIL’. Thus, it appears that at the time of assignment of the aforesaid land to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, there were no trees standing in that property.

In connection with an identical issue a Division Bench of this Court has held in State of Kerala v. M.T. Thankachan [2025 (7) KHC 100] that an interest contemplated to arise in the future cannot be created in favour of the Government without the sanction or authority of law or by a contract, and that the Land Assignment Act contains no such statutory backing in respect of the trees that may come into existence in future.

Having regard to the law settled in the above regard, it has to be held that the proceedings initiated by the fourth respondent against the petitioner vide Exts P3 to P6 are not justified by law. Therefore, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner, deserve to be allowed. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed as follows: