IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 681 of 2005() --------------------- CMA.118/1997 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT: ---------------------------- 1. LUKOSE PAPPACHAN, A.P. HOUSE, ( DIED) PULAMON, KOTTARAKKARA. ADDITIONAL PETITIONERS 2. ALEYKUTTY PAPPACHAN W/O LATE LUKOSE PAPPACHAN A.P.HOUSE, PULAMON, KOTTARAKKARA 3. SABU A.L. S/O LATE LUKOSE PAPPACHAN A.P.HOUSE, PULAMON, KOTTARAKKARA 4. DAVIDSON PAPPACHAN S/O LATE LUKOSE PAPPACHAN A.P.HOUSE, PULAMON, KOTTARAKKARA 5. JOHNSON S/O LATE LUKOSE PAPPACHAN A.P.HOUSE, PULAMON, KOTTARAKKARA First petitioner died and the legal representatives are impleaded as additional petitioners 2 to 5 vide order dtd. 27/02/2007 in I.A.No.386/07 BY ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR SMT.PRIYA S.RANI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PUNALUR. 3. THE RANGE OFFICER, PATHANAPURAM. BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PRAKASH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.681 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of February, 2008 ORDER Under challenge in this revision petition is the judgment of the learned District Judge confirming confiscation orders passed by the Divisional Forest Officer under Section 61(D) of the Kerala Forest Act. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner very strenuously addressed me on the various grounds in the revision petition, I cannot agree that the judgment of the learned District Judge and the order of confiscation passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, which it was confirmed by the said judgment are vitiated. Sri.Prakash, learned Special Government Pleader draws my attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in State of Kerala v. Ancy Philip ( 2006(1)KLT 699) and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. S.P.Sales Agencies and others ( 2004(4)Supreme Court Cases 448). Having considered the principles emerging from the two decisions cited by the learned Special Government Pleader, I am of the view that there is no jurisdictional infirmity in the judgment CRP.No.681/05 2 of the learned District Judge warranting interference of this court in revisional jurisdiction. Civil Revision Petition will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. CRP.No.681/05 2