Thiruvananthapuram: Former revenue minister E Chandrasekharan issued a note on October 5, 2020, for the controversial order allowing the felling of precious trees at Muttil village in Wayanad, it was revealed.
The directive was allegedly issued to circumvent the law that prohibited the felling of royal trees, sandalwood, rosewood, teakwood and ebony.
The order, issued under the direct instruction of, and signed by the minister, clarified that no permission was required to cut these four species. The order also revealed that the minister had instructed action against officials who prevented the felling of trees.
Farmers from the Kattambuzha forest area had sought permission to fell trees that they had planted. Based on their request, the minister convened a meeting on June 27, 2019.
At the meeting, the Department of Forests clarified that it was not opposed to felling trees, barring sandalwood, rosewood, teak and ebony, on assigned pattaya (deeded) land. The department also pointed out that the right to fell these four species rested solely with the government.
Following the forest department’s opposition, the meeting sought the views of the revenue department.
The chief of the forest department reiterated its argument against felling sandalwood, rosewood, teak and ebony at another meeting the revenue minister had chaired on September 3, 2019.
The meeting decided to amend the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1964, to allow the felling of trees that farmers had planted and grown after receiving the title deeds of revenue land.
The then Minister Chandrasekharan ordered a report after assimilating the views and recommendations of the legal department and Additional Advocate General. The order was not implemented.
Officials, however, noted on official files that the move would not stand legal scrutiny and the amendment of 2017 had barred the felling of sandalwood, rosewood, teak and ebony.
The Department of Revenue, on March 11, 2020, had issued an order to bring in clarity to the norms on felling naturally grown trees and planted by farmers on deeded land. The order said all trees, except sandalwood, could be felled on such land.
The High Court of Kerala, however, stayed the order based on a petition by a voluntary organization, One Earth, One Life.
It has now been alleged that Minister Chandrasekharan took special interest to overcome opposition to the matter and instructed the secretary to issue the order. He reportedly put pressure to get the order issued, though he had earlier instructed officials to seek the opinions of the legal department and additional advocate general.
A note from the minister allegedly misinterpreted the Section 6 of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act, 2005, which specifically clarified that trees reserved by the government should not be felled.
The Section, pertaining to the “Right of the Owners to Cut and Remove Trees” has clarified that the provision to cut trees under the sub-section “shall not apply to trees, if any, reserved by the Government at the time of assignment of such land or trees standing on any land notified under section 5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986.”
The Minister’s note also included a rare clause mooting legal action against those preventing the felling of trees. The revenue secretary issued the note as an order on October 24, 2020.