IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932 AS.No. 105 of 1996() ------------------- OS.387/1994 OF SUB COURT, PALA ............... APPELLANT – PLAINTIFF : ----------------------------------- AUGUSTHY OUSEPH, KIZHAKKE PERUMPALLYPARA HOUSE, RAMAPURAM P.O., PALAI. BY ADVS. SRI. JOHNSON MANAYANI SRI. BABY JOSEPH RESPONDENTS – DEFENDANTS : ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIST. COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 3. SRI. C.C. GEORGE, TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL TALUK, PALA. 4. M.K. RUGMINI DEVI, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RAMAPURAM PANCHAYAT, RAMAPURAM, PALA. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. P.K. BABU R3 BY ADVS. SRI.V.PREMCHAND SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI FOR SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE R4 BY ADVS.SRI. P M MOHAMMED SHIRAZ SRI. THOMAS M JACOB THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = A.S. NO. 105 OF 1996 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Pala in O.S.387/94. The suit is one for damages and the trial Court dismissed the suit. It is against that decision the present appeal is filed. The subject matter of the suit is almost two decades old and therefore the bitterness and hatred should have subsided. It is the case of the plaintiff that 82 cents of property in Sy.No.481/2 of Ramapuram village belonged to the son of the plaintiff and certain trees were cut from the property. The Panchayat on instructions from the 3rd defendant had implicated the plaintiff in a theft case and it has brought disgrace to him. It was also found A.S. 105 OF 1996 -2- that the property really belonged to the plaintiff's son and therefore the whole action initiated by the authorities is with malafide and so the suit is filed for damages. Quite strangely the 4th defendant who is the executive officer, had chosen to remain exparte and defendants 1 to 3 have been represented and a written statement is filed. Now an elaborate discussion on the subject is not essential for the following reasons. 2. An action was initiated against the plaintiff alleging that trees had been cut from the puramboke belonging to the Panchayat. Later the authorities who had initiated the action themselves had found that there is no puramboke in Sy.No.481/2 and therefore it has to be held that neither the plaintiff nor his son had cut and removed any trees from the puramboke A.S. 105 OF 1996 -3- belonged to the Panchayat. Now the question is whether the initiation of this action is with good faith. S.124 of the Kerala Panchayats Act of 1960 protects persons when action is initiated on good faith. Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 S.124 reads as follows. “124. Protection of President and officers, etc. acting in good faith - No suit or other legal proceedings shall be brought against the President, executive authority, or any member,officer or servant of a Panchayat, or any person acting under the direction of a Panchayat or of such act done or purporting to be done under this Act or in respect of any alleged neglect or default on his part in the execution of this Act, or any rule, bye-law, regulation or order made under it, if such act was done or such neglect or A.S. 105 OF 1996 -4- default occurred in good faith; but any such proceeding shall, so far as it is maintainable in a Court, be brought against the Panchayat except in the case of suits brought under S.126.” 3. Now it has to be remembered a Village Officer without application of his mind had been instrumental for all these calamities, filed a report and in pursuance of that report the 3rd defendant, Tahsildar directed the Panchayat authorities to initiate action. So there was a document prepared which did show that trees had been cut and removed from the Puramboke land. So in the anxiety to avoid Governmental loss it is submitted that action is initiated. The plaintiff had moved before this Court for anticipatory bail and had obtained the bail. He had also moved the R.D.O. and the R.D.O. has stopped the proceedings and it is also seen that A.S. 105 OF 1996 -5- even before the receipt of the stay order of the R.D.O. the complaint against the plaintiff has been filed for theft of the articles. But it has to be stated that responsible officers in charge of the affairs did not attempt to perpetuate the mistake committed by them but they conducted an enquiry and the enquiry revealed that the trees cut were from a property which does not lie in the puramboke. So it was found out that the plaintiff had not committed any act of trespass and cut and removed the trees. The plaintiff in his anxiety also after cutting trees attempted to remove the trees and it persuaded the authorities to file a police complaint. Now I cannot find that there was any personal enmity or vengeance against the plaintiff to put him into trouble. The whole action appears to be that a Village Officer A.S. 105 OF 1996 -6- without adverting care prepared a wrong report stating that trees had been cut from the 'thodu puramboke' and therefore the authorities initiated action on the basis of the same. They had done in real good faith. But I may have to state one thing that after realising that such a mistake is committed it is quite uncharitable on the part of the Governmental officers to attribute bad motives on the plaintiff. It is stated that he is unpopular in the locality having no reputation. Such a remark was not at all contemplated and therefore I feel the officers should have shown better maturity in making aspersions about the person without due regard to the facts. I say so specifically for the reason that having found that the plaintiff had not committed any crime it was only uncharitable to make such a remark. But I do A.S. 105 OF 1996 -7- not want to make it an issue but the displeasure has to be recorded and I do so. 4. Now from the materials available I hold that S.124 of the Panchayat Act comes to protect the officers since it is an action done in good faith and the governmental authorities were all persuaded only on the basis of a wrong report submitted by the Village Officer who really did not have any malice. Further the trial court has made adequate precaution and it directed action to be initiated against the Village Officer who had prepared the wrong report. So the officer who committed the mistake is asked to be dealt with departmentally and it is also reflected in the judgment. Therefore taking into consideration the long passage of time and the absence of any motive or any malafide and as it appears to have been done in good faith I do A.S. 105 OF 1996 -8- not want to disturb the finding entered into by the trial court and therefore the appeal is dismissed but without costs. But I also make it very clear that when actions are initiated it must be done after due care otherwise the poor public will be put into considerable hardship. Sd/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- [true copy] P.A. To Judge. A.S. 105 OF 1996 -9- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = A.S. No.105 OF 1996 = = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T 20th October, 2010.