Keralam Forest department in a quandary over permission to fell trees

Keralam Forest department has found itself in a quandary over allowing felling of trees on assigned forestland.

The department, which had booked cases against two persons for cutting down two jackfruit trees, a mango tree and Pathiri trees from a holding located in the Cardamom Hill Reserve in Idukki, subsequently withdrew the proceedings a few weeks ago.

The accused were booked under the Kerala Forest (Prohibition of Felling of Trees Standing on Land Temporarily or Permanently Assigned) Rules 1995, on August 29, 2026. The axed trees, which were located on the holding of the mother of the first accused, were valued at ₹15,607 and the loss to the government estimated at ₹4,000.

Contention

The first accused had contended that the trees were cut down to meet the medical expenses of his elder sister and for house repair. He also contended that he had nurtured the saplings, which did not belong to the protected species category.

The case was also filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Idukki.

However, after four days of booking the case, the department approached the court for withdrawing the proceedings by accepting the contentions of the accused that the owner of the holding was not alive and the trees were axed for raising funds for the repair of the house and meeting medical expenses.

The argument that the axed trees were not included in the schedule of protected species and the accused had no criminal antecedents were put forth as the grounds for withdrawal of the case, according to the official records.

Recent withdrawal of order

Incidentally, the developments in the case attain relevance in the wake of the department’s recent decision to withdraw its order permitting the cutting of trees on assigned land. The Hindu had reported that the government had withdrawn the order permitting the felling of trees following widespread criticism.

A section of Forest officials contended that the felling of trees on assigned forestland should not be permitted unless the holdings are de-reserved. The holdings that are not de-reserved need to be considered as reserve forest and felling of trees from such holdings is a punishable offence, they argued.

However, there are also contentions that trees grown by the title holders of assigned forestland, which are not included in the list of 10 protected species, shall be permitted to be felled. The ambiguity regarding the legal status of the holding is dragging both the landowners and the officials into legal complexities, the forest officials argued.

CBI probe sought

Meanwhile, Animals and Nature Ethics Community Trust, Ernakulam, an NGO, has sought a CBI probe into the circular issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests, High Range Circle, Kottayam, on felling of trees and its subsequent withdrawal.

Comparing the order with the infamous Muttil tree felling case where hundreds of valuable trees were cut down under the cover of a subsequently withdrawn government order, the NGO has sought a digital forensic examination of official records and a comprehensive audit of tree-felling permissions and timber transportation during the intervening period.