IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 13519 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ CHACKO, S/O.DAVIS, ATHIKAKUZHY VEEDU, MOOKANOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.JOSHI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. R.D.O., FORT KOCHI. 3. TAHSILDAR, ALUVA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 13519 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 22nd July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P2 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, whereby the petitioner's appeal against an order seeking to recover royalty and penalty from the petitioner for blasting rocks from Government land has been dismissed by the RDO. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner has produced the order of the original authority, viz. the Tahsildar, against which an appeal resulting in Ext. P2 order has been filed, which is Ext. P3 . The contention of the petitioner is that one Kannampuzha Ouseph Thomas represented to the petitioner that the property in question belongs to him and by Ext. P4 agreement that Kannampuzha Ouseph Thomas permitted the petitioner to blast rock from that property for the consideration mentioned therein. The petitioner therefore submits that since it is on the representation made by the said Kannampuzha Ouseph Thomas that the property is his that he has blasted rock, he cannot be made responsible for the amounts sought to be realised as per Exts. P3 and P2. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the records relating to Exhibit P1 & P2 and quash the same. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus order or direction for a fresh enquiry in the property in which the rocks were blased. Iii. Issue a writ of mandamus order or direction for fresh re- survey in the area situated in Ayyampuzha Village in which the property of Kannampuzha Ouseph and the property where the rock were blasted.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. Although the petitioner would assert that he has blasted rocks from the property of the said Kannampuzha Ouseph Thomas, he has not produced any documents whatsoever to establish this fact. W.P.C. No. 13519/2008. -: 2 :- On the other hand, his case appears to be that since Kannampuzha Ouseph Thomas permitted him to do so, he is not responsible, but Kannampuzha Ouseph Thomas would alone be responsible. The Tahsildar and the RDO have come to the conclusion that the property is Government land. No documents whatsoever have been produced either before the Tahsildar and RDO or before this Court to prove the allegation that the property belongs to the said Kannampuzha Ouseph Thomas. The petitioner has not even chosen to implead Kannampuzha Ouseph Thomas as a party to this writ petition to prove his case. At the same time, the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the rock has been blasted from the property in question, which he has appropriated to himself. The land being Government land, naturally, the petitioner has to answer for the illegal act done by him. The fact that it was believing the representation made by the other person that he had done the same does not in any way absolve him from liability. Of course, the petitioner would contend that no enquiry has been conducted with notice to him. But he frankly admits that before the Tahsildar he was given an opportunity of being heard and it is only after hearing him that Ext. P3 order has been passed. That being so, it was the onus of the petitioner to prove his case appropriately. But he has sadly failed to do so. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the challenge against either Ext. P3 or against Ext. P2. Therefore, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. However, I make it clear that this is without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to proceed against the said Kannampuzha Ouseph Thomas to recover the amount from him, if he is entitled to do so. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.