JUDGMENT : 1. Since a common issue is involved in these writ petitions, they have been heard and disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The 1 st petitioner in WP(C) No.27509 of 2022, is the owner in possession of 2.59 hectares of property in Sy No.639/1 and 639/2, and the 2nd petitioner is the owner in possession of 1.27 hectares of property in Sy.Nos 639/3 and 670/1 of Pangarappilly Village, Thalappilly Taluk, Thrissur District. The reliefs sought in the writ petition are as follows: “a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction and thereby direct the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents to give permission to cut and remove the remained trees in the assigned land owned by the petitioners which are cultivated by them within a stipulated time as fixed by this Hon'ble court, by allowing Ext.P6 and P7 applications. b) Declare that the petitioners have every right to plant other trees in the property assigned to them in the light of Section 3 of Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non- Non-Forest Areas Act, 2005 and they have every right to cut and remove the trees therein as per Section 6 of Act, 2005 and hence Ext-P8 O.R.8/2022 registered against the petitioners is illegal and unsustainable in law. c) Grant such other order, which are just and necessary in the interest of justice and deem fit, just and proper Interim relief.” Whereas in WP(C) No.29418 of 2022, the petitioner is the owner in possession of 1.2380 hectares of property in Sy.No. 319/2 and 319/7 of Pulakode Village, Thalappilly Taluk, Thrissur District. The relief sought in the writ petition are as follows: “i) Call for the entire records leading to Ext-P6 and P7 quash same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction ii) Issue a writ, of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction and thereby direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to give permission to cut and remove the trees as sought for in Ext-P4 application within a stipulated time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. iii) Declare that the holder of land acquired as per the purchase certificate issued under the provisions of Special Rules for Assignment of Government Land for Rubber Cultivation , 1960, after paying purchase price, has every right to cut and remove the trees standing in his holding as per the provisions of Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non Forest Areas Act, 2005 iv) To dispense with producing English translation of documents. v) Grant such other order, which are just and necessary in the interest of justice and deem fit, just and proper Interim relief. “ In WP(C) No.29418 of 2022, the request made by the petitioner for cutting and removing trees standing in the patta land was declined by Ext.P6. Later, by Ext.P7, the Divisional Forest Officer, Thrissur, also rejected the appeal against the same, taking a stand that the right of the trees over the patta land is with the Government and therefore, permission cannot be granted for cutting and removing the trees. The contention of the petitioner is that the property was assigned and a patta was issued to the petitioner's father as per Ext.P1, and as per Ext.P3, the land was assigned, and at the time of the assignment of land, there were no trees in the property and therefore, no tree value was charged. After obtaining the said property, the petitioner's father cultivated rubber and also planted teak, Anjili and Maruthu for the protection of the rubber plantation. Petitioner submitted an application for removal of the trees for re- plantation of the rubber; the same was rejected as per Ext.P6, against which an appeal was preferred before the Divisional Forest Officer, which also ended up in dismissal as per Ext.P7. Petitioner contends that the Government has not reserved any right over the trees planted or cultivated by the petitioner or his predecessor in interest in the assigned land. Petitioner has planted rubber trees and also other trees required for the protection of the rubber plantation, and since the same is planted by the petitioner, he has every right to cut and remove the same, and the stand taken in Exts.P6 and P7 is arbitrary and unjust, and liable to be interfered with. 3. Petitioner has planted rubber trees and also other trees required for the protection of the rubber plantation, and since the same is planted by the petitioner, he has every right to cut and remove the same, and the stand taken in Exts.P6 and P7 is arbitrary and unjust, and liable to be interfered with. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent in WP(C) No.29418 of 2022, wherein it is contended that taking into consideration the girth of the trees standing in the property it is to be presumed that the trees were in the property even at the time of issuance of the patta and the land in question was a reserve forest which was later assigned to the predecessor in interest of the petitioner in 1970 only. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that there are no trees in the property at the time of assignment, and the petitioner has not remitted re-value for the trees in the assigned land, cannot be accepted. It is also submitted that the provisions of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non Forest Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act, 2005') will not apply to the present case. Actually, the land was a reserve forest, later handed over to the revenue department for assignment for rubber cultivation under special rules for the assignment of Government land, 1960. 4. The contention of the petitioner in WP(C) No.27509 of 2022 is that the land in question is an assigned land as per the Special Rules for Assignment of Government Land for Rubber Cultivation , 1960 and Exts.P3 and P4 patta was issued in this regard. It is the contention of the petitioner that there were no trees in the property, and no tree value was charged, and the trees were cultivated by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner for the protection of the rubber plantation. For cutting and removing the said trees for the purpose of re-plantation of rubber Exts.P6 and P7 request before the Forest Range Officer, Machad Range, but no decision was taken on the same. For cutting and removing the said trees for the purpose of re-plantation of rubber Exts.P6 and P7 request before the Forest Range Officer, Machad Range, but no decision was taken on the same. Going by Section 6 (6) of the Act, 2005, if the forest officer does not provide the acknowledgment within 20 days on receipt of the declaration, the same shall be deemed to have been received and in view of the same, the petitioner has implied authorisation to cut and remove the trees mentioned in Exts.P6 and P7 declaration, but alleging that the petitioner has cut and removed trees without necessary permission, Ext.P8 crime was registered. Petitioner relies on Section 3 of the Act, 2005, and submit that every owner of non-forest land shall be free to plant trees in his land. Going by of the Act, 2005, petitioner has every right to cut and remove such trees and transport the same, except sandal wood Exts.P3 to P5 patta would show that the Government has not reserved any right over the trees planted and cultivated and the petitioner is entitled to remove the same. 5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2 nd respondent, wherein it is admitted that the property has been assigned as per the provisions of the Special Rules for Assignment of Government Land for Rubber Cultivation , 1960 (for short, the Rules, 1960) and since there is no reservation of trees in the patta, provisions of Section 6 of the Act, 2005 will apply to the said land and thereupon, the owner of such trees can cut and remove the same only after filing a declaration containing details such as the survey number of the land, from which the tree is to be cut, number of trees, species of trees, etc. But in the present case, the petitioner failed to file any declaration before the authorised officer for cutting teak and for transporting Irul and Tempavu and so, there is violation of the provisions of of the Act, 2005. Since the petitioner has cut and removed timber without such declaration, crimes were registered as OR No.07 of 2022 and 08 of 2022. 6. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent also. Since the petitioner has cut and removed timber without such declaration, crimes were registered as OR No.07 of 2022 and 08 of 2022. 6. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent also. Relying on the Special Rules for Assignment of Government Land for Rubber Cultivation 1960, especially Rule 1(b) it is submitted that the land which is under the control of the Forest Department, has been made available from time to time for planting with rubber under the scheme for rubber cultivation of the Government and as per the said Rule, the land at the disposal of the Forest Department is assigned for rubber cultivation and hence the provisions of the Kerala Forest Act and Rules made thereunder are applicable to the land which is assigned for cultivation of rubber. Further, as per Rule 2(d), 'land' means land owned by the Government and controlled by the Forest Department and made available for rubber cultivation. Therefore, it is submitted that the assigned land is a land controlled by the Forest Department. Section 82 of the Forest Act provides that the trees and timber found in any land at the disposal of the Government, which may hereafter be granted for permanent cultivation under such Rules as may be in force at the time, shall be held to be the property of the Government. It is also contended that the land assigned for rubber cultivation is forest land, and the provisions of the Forest Act and Rules are applicable. 7. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, a memo has been filed by the Special Government Pleader (Forests) regarding the notification notifying the land as Reserve Forest, which specifically shows that only land included in Survey Nos 264,233,346 and 347 of Village No.63 of Panjarapally is notified as Reserve Forest. Admittedly, the property which is assigned to the petitioners does not come under the said survey numbers. 8. I have heard the rival contentions on both8 sides. 9. Admittedly, the property does not come within the purview of the reserved forest, going by the notification produced by the learned Government Pleader along with the memo dated 04.07.2025. Admittedly, the property which is assigned to the petitioners does not come under the said survey numbers. 8. I have heard the rival contentions on both8 sides. 9. Admittedly, the property does not come within the purview of the reserved forest, going by the notification produced by the learned Government Pleader along with the memo dated 04.07.2025. It is also an admitted fact that at the time of the assignment f land there was no trees in the property and therefore, no tree value was charged and that, after the assignment, trees were planted by the assignee for the protection of the rubber plantation, and the same is now required to be cut and removed for re-plantation of rubber. No right has been reserved over the trees planted or cultivated by the assignee in the assigned land. Further a perusal of the patta issued would reveal that the assignee is liable to pay 25% of the land value arrived at 16% as mentioned in Condition No.1 above as a premium in consideration of the loss of Forest Reserve to Government. Therefore, the forest department has also been compensated. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala and Others v. M.T.Thankachan , 2025(7) KHC 100 wherein this Court considered a similar issue, paragraph 11 and 17 of the said judgment read as follows: “11. The assignment, as understood under the Land Assignment Act, must be in respect of something that existed at the time of assignment. There is no bar under law for the State to legislate to vest surface rights that existed at the time of assignment and that may come in the future. The question that arises for consideration in this matter is whether, in the absence of any provision relating to conditions on the surface rights to raise a claim for the trees that may come into existence after the assignment, the Government would be justified in claiming rights over such trees. 17. A legal right is the recognition of an interest by law. It signifies the enjoyment of that interest and may relate either to an existing interest or to one that may arise in the future. 17. A legal right is the recognition of an interest by law. It signifies the enjoyment of that interest and may relate either to an existing interest or to one that may arise in the future. However, statutory provisions concerning a right must ordinarily be interpreted with reference to rights that presently subsist, unless the statute expressly provides for rights that may arise in the future. The Land Assignment Act governs the assignment of Government land and, therefore, concerns itself with the rights subsisting in such land. The term interest denotes a person’s specific legal relationship with the subject matter of property. Accordingly, the Government’s interest must relate to the land and to what is attached to it. Any interest contemplated to arise in the future cannot, however, be created in favour of the Government without the sanction or authority of law or by a contract. We find no provision in the Land Assignment Act conferring such a right over trees that may come into existence in the future, nor is there any enabling provision empowering the making of Rules to create such an interest.” The Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that any interest contemplated to arise in the future cannot however be created in favour of the Government without the sanction or authority of law or by a contract and Court further held that there is no provision in the Land Assignment Act conferring such right over trees that may come into existence in the future nor there is any enabling provision empowering the making of Rules to create such an interest. In the light of the facts of the case as enumerated above and the declaration of law in Thankachan 's case cited supra, I am of the view that Exts.P6 and P7 in WP(C) No.29418 of 2022 is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the above writ petitions are disposed of as follows: 1. Exts.P6 and P7 orders in WP(C) No.29418 of 2022 are quashed with a consequential direction to respondents 2 and 3 to reconsider Ext.P4 application seeking permission to cut and remove the trees in the light of the observation made above and in the judgment of the Divisional Bench of this Court in Thankachan 's case cited supra. 2. Exts.P6 and P7 orders in WP(C) No.29418 of 2022 are quashed with a consequential direction to respondents 2 and 3 to reconsider Ext.P4 application seeking permission to cut and remove the trees in the light of the observation made above and in the judgment of the Divisional Bench of this Court in Thankachan 's case cited supra. 2. There will be a further direction to respondents 2 and 3 to consider and pass orders on Exts.P6 and P7 application submitted by the petitioner in WP(C) No.27509 of 2022 in the light of the observation made above and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Thankachan 's case cited supra. 3. A decision as directed above shall be taken within an outer limit of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners herein.