IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 20958 of 2000(T) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------------- V.K.PRABHAKARAN, AGED 52 YEARS, VATTAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, EDAKKULAM, VADASSERIKKARA VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE PALLATTUKARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, RANNI TALUK OFFICE, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT (LANDS) TRIVANDRUM. BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.35138/2000 IN O.P.NO.20958/2000 T DISMISSED 17/01/2008 SD/- K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 25/02/1993 BEARING NO.3778/89/B4 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER NO.K.DIS.1427/93 DTD. 30/06/98 ISSUED B BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF REVISION APPLICATION DTD. 16/10/98 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 29/03/2000 BEARING NO.R8/32235/98/K.DIS. PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.20958 of 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner calls in question Exts. P2 and P4 and seeks a direction to consider Ext.P3. The further prayer is for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to abstain from initiating proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4. Petitioner cut down eight teak trees. Proceedings were taken under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. The Tahsildar imposed fine of Rs.59,496/- (Ext.P1). In appeal by Ext.P2 order, Ext.P1 order stands confirmed. In appeal it is found that the petitioner has admittedly cut down eight trees. According to him three trees stand in the land owned by him and other trees were as shown in the pattayam. But it is seen that five trees are seen reserved as per the schedule. It is also found that the petitioner has cut down three trees from the puramboke land adjacent to the petitioner's property. Though petitioner preferred revision, it was dismissed for consistent default on the part of the lawyer to appear. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of three trees action of the respondent is objectionable. There is a categoric finding in Ext.P2 that petitioner cut down eight trees, which is not disputed. There is a further finding that the petitioner had cut down eight trees O.P. 20958/2000. 2 belonging to Government. I do not find any material placed by the petitioner to upset the finding. As far as five trees are concerned, it is stated that they are seen reserved as per the patta. Petitioner would submit that prohibition is only for a period of three years. Petitioner has not even cared to produce the patta. The burden is on the petitioner to show that the prohibition of cutting is only for three years. Petitioner fails to do so. I do not see any merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb O.P. 20958/2000. 3 K.M. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------- O.P. No.20958 of 2000 ------------------------------- JUDGMENT 17.1.2008.