IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 11661 of 2011(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JOSHUA DANIEL, S/O.DANIEL P.V., AGED 54 YEARS, PADAYANICKAL HOUSE, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD SMT.M.S.LETHA SRI.K.V.ARUN KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KONNI. 3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (WILD LIFE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR, SOUTHERN CIRCLE, KOLLAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BENNY VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 11661 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 2nd June , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is before this Court complaining on the inadequacy of the compensation ordered, as per Ext. P3 dated 04.01.2011, whereby a total sum of Rs.11409/- was awarded , which, according to the petitioner is abysmally low and that the petitioner has actually sustained a loss of nearly Rs.30,00,000/- because of the damage sustained to the crop due to wild elephants' attack. 2. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit pointing out the actual facts and figures, specifically contending that the benefits payable in such situation are governed by Ext.R2(a) Government Order, providing for compensation in tune with the Kerala Rules for payment of Compensation to the victims of attack by wild animals, 1980, which prescribes that the compensation to be paid to the loss or damage to property W.P.(C) No. 11661 OF 2011 2 (such as houses/huts, crops, cattle etc ) shall be 100% of the loss assessed; subject to a maximum of Rs.50,000/- in each case. It has also been categorically stated in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit that, as per the assessment of the Agricultural Officer, the number of Coconut palms bearing nuts were 29 Nos., Arecanut Palms 35 Nos, Banana bunched-12 Nos., Banana unbunched 32 Nos, and non-bearing Arecanut 15 Nos., whereas the claim of the applicant is a much inflated one, showing the number of coconut palms as 100 Nos., Arecanut palms 200 Nos., and Banana 2000 Nos. 3. The assessment made, as above, was verified by the authorities of the Forest department as well. It was after considering the report of the concerned Range Officer that Ext. P3 order was passed by the second respondent, which is stated as perfectly in tune with the relevant norms and provisions and is not assailable under any circumstance. The learned Government Pleader submits that, if the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner there is an effective alternate remedy under the Statute, which stipulates a period of 30 days from the date of W.P.(C) No. 11661 OF 2011 3 receipt of the order. In the above circumstance, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is seen that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 proceedings before the 2nd respondent accepting compensation 'allegedly under protest' and that the same is seen served to the second respondent on '17.02.2011'. Though Ext.P4 is not dated, since it was filed within 30 days, this Court considers it as fit and proper to permit the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy. In the above circumstances, it is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the matter, if still aggrieved, by filing an appeal within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, on which event, it shall be considered by the concerned appellate authority and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, if the Appeal is otherwise proper in all respects. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk W.P.(C) No. 11661 OF 2011 4