IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 28824 of 2005(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- K.M.EBRAHIM HAJI, S/O.MOHAMMED, KALLUMPURATH, PALLARIMANGALAM P.O. BY ADVS. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.JYOTHISH.J.KALLINGAL RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPPUZHA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKAULAM DISTRICT, CIVIL LINES, KAKKANAD, COCHIN 30. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED ANZAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vkm W.P.(C)No. 28824/05 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 31.10.2001. EXHIBIT P2 : A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 22.11.2001. EXHIBIT P3 : A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF PAGE NOS. 1,2,31,32 & 33 OF THE PASSPORT NO. 104419 DATED 5.12.1988. EXHIBIT P4 : A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.9.2003 IN L.C.No. 13/2001. EXHIBIT P5 : A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER 5.1.2005. EXHIBIT P6 : A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REVISIONAL ORDER DATED 19.8.2005. EXHIBIT P7 : A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 1.10.2005. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. vkm KURIAN JOSEPH, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.28824 OF 2005 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The proceedings against the Kerala Land Conservancy Act initiated against the petitioner culminating Exhibit P6 order are under challenge. The issue is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner in the Division Bench decision of this Court in Tahsildar, Nedumangad & Ors. vs. Sreedharan Nair (1998(1)K.L.J. 595) wherein it has been held as follows: “The nature of proceeding under S.10 is quasi-criminal and therefore there must be strict proof before any person is convicted under this section. In this case no prosecution had been launched against the respondent. What the Tahsildar did was to recover the damages on the ground that the respondent had destroyed the tree belonging to the Government. The provision contained in Sec.10 of the Act shall be attracted only when it is clearly established that a person had destroyed a useful tree belonging to the Government. There is no witness to the cutting and removing the tree by the respondent. What is said in Ext.P2 is that they made enquiries and came to know that the respondent had destroyed the tree. This is insufficient for fastening the criminal liability on the respondent. The order passed by the Tahsildar must disclose the evidence in support of the requirement that the respondent had destroyed the W.P.(C) No.28824/05 2 useful tree. In the absence of any evidence being disclosed in Ext.P2, it is difficult for this court to say that the offence contemplated under Sec.10 has been established”. 2. From the impugned orders, no such element so as to fasten a liability in a quasi-criminal proceedings is available, particularly in view of the fact that there is no dispute that the petitioner was abroad during the relevant period. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are quashed. Petitioner is free to revoke the bank guarantee. This writ petition is disposed of as above. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. smp W.P.(C) No.28824/05 3 KURIAN JOSEPH, J. W.P.(C) No. 28824 OF 2005 J U D G M E N T 25.07.2008