IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15908 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. VAMANA NAIKA, S/O CHANIYA NAIKA, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT DELAMPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD P.O., DELAMPADY, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. RUKMAYA NAIKA, S/O.CHANIYA NAIKA, RESIDING AT DELAMPADY VILLAGE, KSARAGOD P.O., DELAMPADY, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. KRISHNA NAIKA, S/O.CHANIYA NAIKA, RESIDING AT DELAMPADY, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, KASARAGOD. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KASARAGOD. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (F), KASARAGOD. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15908 of 2009 --------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Visited with Ext.P2 order passed under Section 10 of the Land Conservancy Act finding that the petitioners are liable to pay damages for unauthorised cutting of trees situated in a puramboke land, they preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 16 of the Land Conservancy Act. The appeal was also dismissed as per Ext.P3. Against the same, they have preferred Ext.P4 revision before the District Collector and have also moved an application for stay as Ext.P4. The District Collector informed the petitioners that the revision has been taken on file and a stay has been granted on condition that the petitioners remit 35% of the amount on or before 26.11.2008. The petitioners did not comply with the condition. Instead, they moved Ext.P7 revision challenging the conditional order passed by the District Collector as evidenced by Ext.P6. The Commissioner for Land Revenue declined to accept the revision on the ground that the order sought to be impugned in the revision is only an order passed on the stay petition. It is W.P.(C)No.15908 of 2009 :: 2 :: this stand taken by the Commissioner for Land Revenue that has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. I heard Mr.R.S.Kalkura, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 3. I am not inclined to interfere with the conditional order of stay passed by the District Collector. It is a discretionary power exercised by the District Collector. There is yet another reason why I am not inclined to interfere with the conditional order. It could be seen from Section 16 of the Land Conservancy Act that the revisional power exercised by the Commissioner of Land Revenue cannot be exercised in relation to an appellate order passed by the District Collector. The order passed by District Collector granting a conditional stay is obviously in exercise of his appellate powers. Therefore, a revision will not lie against Ext.P6 before the Commissioner of Land Revenue. For all these reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. But, it is only W.P.(C)No.15908 of 2009 :: 3 :: appropriate that the District Collector takes up the revision and disposes it of at the earliest. At any rate, this shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the petitioners pay the amount demanded in Ext.P6 within one month from today, such payment shall be treated as one in compliance with the time frame fixed in Ext.P6. Sd/- (V.GIRI) Judge sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge