IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 AS.No. 267 of 2001() -------------------- OS.262/1992 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): DEFENDANTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. M.A.VINCENT, ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER, KUMILY, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. O.K. SYED MOHAMMED, DEPUTY COLLECTOR (ELECTIONS) IDUKKI, PAINAVU. 4. K.A.SANKARA PILLAI, DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. 5. A.A. NARAYANAN NAIR, VILLAGE OFFICER, KARIKODE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K. BABU RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------------- JOSEPH, S/O.KURIAKOSE, AGED 45 YEARS, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, EDAVETTY KARA, KARIKODE VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CMP.NO.1847/2001 IN AS.NO.267/2001 DISMISSED 6/07/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.267 OF 2001 ............................................. Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thodupuzha in O.S.No.262/1992. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are stated as follows: 2. The plaintiff is the owner with respect to 1.75 acres of land comprised in Sy.No.1336/5 of Karikkode village. As paddy cultivation became impossible, he moved an application for conversion to cultivate other crops and it was permitted by the Revenue DivisionalOfficer. Subsequently the plaintiff planted rubber trees. An action was initiated stating that it is not permissible to raise rubber cultivation and therefore the Revenue Divisional Officer directed him to cut and remove the rubber trees and to re do the cultivation. A notice was issued for removal of trees in April, 1991. Subsequently, the Revenue Divisional Officer initiated action for auctioning the right to cultivate the property and when the said proceedings were mooted : 2 : A.S.NO.267 OF 2001 and as already an appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff, he moved an application for stay of the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer was informed that the right to conduct auction in consequence of the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer is stayed. The order was passed by the Secretary, Board of Revenue, where the matter was pending. Now the material appears that ignoring the order of stay and contending for the position that the stay relates only to the conduct of the auction, defendants 2 to 5 moved to implement the order passed earlier by the Revenue Divisional Officer and removed the rubber trees. 3. At the outset, I may like to point out that when an order passed by the authority is challenged in appeal or revision before the competent authorities, generally one will not especially the Government would try to change the character of the property thereby causing damages to the property. The direction to remove the rubber trees planted was only with the intention to auction the property for the purpose of cultivation of other crops. The very auction was : 3 : A.S.NO.267 OF 2001 stayed by the Board of Revenue which means that indirectly there was an order to maintain status quo. But, unfortunately the authorities under the pretext of implementation of an earlier order had cut and removed the rubber trees. It is interesting to note that by virtue of Ext.A23 order, the Board of Revenue had reversed the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and held that the plaintiff is entitled for the conversion as done by him. So the loss that is occasioned to the plaintiff has to be reimbursed to him. 4. When the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is cancelled and the act done by the plaintiff is upheld by the Board of Revenue and as there is no challenge against the order of revenue by any of the parties, it has attained finality and therefore the Governmental Department is directed to make good of the loss that is occasioned on account of cutting of the rubber trees. Though the claim was for a large amount of Rs.60,000/=, the learned Subordinate Judge has granted a sum of Rs.9,000/= i.e., value of Rs.7,990/= and for the wrongful trespass : 4 : A.S.NO.267 OF 2001 Rs.1,000/=. I find that the learned Subordinate Judge has acted in accordance with law and therefore the appeal filed by the Government do not warrant interference with respect to the judgment and decree. Therefore the appeal fails and the same is dismissed but under the circumstances without any order as to costs. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 5 : A.S.NO.267 OF 2001 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. . .......................................... A.S.NO.267 OF 2001 ............................................. 6th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T