IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32975 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.G.SAJEEVAN,AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.LATE GOVINDAN NAIR, THEKKEPALIETH VIDAKUZHA, NADPO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683 563. BY ADV. SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL) SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI,KOCHI 682 001. 2. THE KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY,REP.BY THE SECRETARY,CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR PO, COCHIN 682 033. BY ADV. SRI.MANU S.GOVIND (AMICUS CURIAE) BY SC SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER (R2) BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.32975 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a resident of Kalamassery Municipality. It is alleged that on 29.3.2010 about 15 to 20 stray buffalos entered the land belonging to the petitioner after destroying the fence erected by him and destroyed the vegetables and banana plantains cultivated by him, as a result of which he sustained loss to the tune of Rs.4000/-. It is stated that he thereupon submitted Ext.P1 petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi, requesting that officer to issue necessary directions to the Kalamassery Municipality and other concerned persons to pay compensation to him. It is stated that upon receipt of Ext.P1 complaint, the Revenue Divisional Officer called for a report from the local authority and that notwithstanding the passage of time, the local authority has not submitted a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondent, Kalamassery Municipality, to submit the report called for by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court and a direction to the first respondent to dispose of Ext.P1 application. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the second respondent to pay compensation to him, if on enquiry it is found that he has sustained damages as claimed in W.P.(C) No.32975 of 2010 2 Ext.P1 application. 2. Section 2 of the Kerala Cattle Trespass Act, 1961 stipulates that 'pounds may be established at such places in each village, panchayat or municipality, if the local authority so decides and that any pound established in one local authority may be used by the adjacent local authority subject to the conditions as may be mutually agreed by the local authorities concerned'. Section 9 thereof stipulates that 'the cultivator or occupier of any land, or any person who has acquired a right for the cultivation of the crop or produce on any land or the vendee or mortgagee of such crop or produce or any part thereof, may seize, or cause to be seized, any cattle trespassing on such land and doing damage thereto or to any crop or produce thereon, and send them or cause them to be sent within twelve hours to the pound established for the area in which the land is situate'. Section 12(a) states that 'If the owner of the impounded cattle or his agent appears and claims the cattle, the pound-keeper shall deliver them to him on payment of the fines and charges incurred in respect of such cattle.' Section 29 of the Act further states that 'Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to prohibit any person whose crops or other produce of land have been damaged by trespass of cattle W.P.(C) No.32975 of 2010 3 from suing for compensation in any competent civil court.' 3. It is evident from the provisions of the Kerala Cattle Trespass Act that the local authority cannot be held liable for the damages, if any, caused to the crops raised by the petitioner by stray cattle. The Act does not mandate that the local authority should take a cattle pound within its local limits. Section 2 is only an enabling provision which states that the local authority may, if it so decides, establish a pound. Under the provisions of the said Act, the petitioner can sue only the owner of the cattle which has strayed into his land and caused damage to his crops. In such circumstances, the Municipality cannot be held liable for damages. 4. The pleadings disclose that the petitioner has moved the Revenue Divisional Officer seeking reliefs apparently invoking his jurisdiction under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not, in my opinion, empower the Revenue Divisional Officer to proceed against the local authority. The Revenue Divisional Officer can only direct the person owning or possessing the dangerous animal to destroy, confine or dispose of such dangerous animal. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot, in my opinion, direct the local authority to W.P.(C) No.32975 of 2010 4 pay damages to the petitioner. The remedy of the petitioner, as stated above, is only to sue the owner of the cattle for damages. The provisions contained in section 439 of the Kerala Municipality Act also do not, in my opinion, make the local authority liable to compensate the loss, if any, sustained by the petitioner. In such circumstances, I hold that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The learned standing counsel for the Kalamassery Municipality submitted that the Municipal committee has at its first meeting decided to establish a cattle pound within the local limits of Kalamassery Municipality, in view of the large number of accidents involving stay cattle. The said submission is recorded. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.