IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 OP.No. 1418 of 2002(R) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.M. JAINILAVUDEEN, CARDAMOM PLANTER, GANDHIPARA ESTATE, ARIVIZHINCHAL P.O., UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, RESIDING AT MANCOONDU MAHAL, KOMBAI, THENI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER, (CARDAMOM SETTLEMENT), KUMALI, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, 1/C OF CARDAMOM SETTLEMENT OFFICER, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REVENUE (E) DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (CARDAMOM SETTLEMENT), UDAMBANCHOLA TALUK, NEDUMKANDOM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY G.P. SRI.MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.2478/2002 IN O.P. NO.1418/2002 DISPOSED OF VIDE JUDGMENT: 28.7.2009 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER, KUMALI- NO.A4-236/90 DT.7.3.1.1991 P2: .DO. NO.A1-1697/89 DT,18.5.1991. P3: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R2 DT.30.7.91. P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE ASST. COLLECTOR, DEVIKULAM I/C OF CARDAMOM SETTLEMENT OFFICER, DEVIKULAM DT.5.7.93. P5: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R3 DT.30.7.93. P6: TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R3 DT.3.8.93. P7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE BOARD OF REVENUE(LR) TRIVANDRUM DT.3.8.93. P8: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF R3 DT.15.1.99. P9: TRUE COPY OF REVIEW PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R3 DT.17.2.99. P10: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF R3 DT.7.7.99. P11: TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R3 DT.26.7.99. P12: TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R3 DT.26.7.99. P13: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF R4 DT.1.9.99. P14: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN C.C. NO.134095 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, NEDUMKANDOM DT.17.7.98. P15: TRUE COPY OF R4 DT..7.11.2001. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.1418 of 2002 .................................................................... Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The order under challenge is issued under the Cardamom Cultivation Rules for destruction of Edanna trees in the land given on kuthakappattom for cultivation of cardamom. On going through the records I find that during enquiry it was noticed that 57 numbers of Edanna trees were exploited in as much as the bark is fully or partially removed and even branches were cut. In the enquiry and even in the appeal, petitioner has not denied the allegations. However, petitioner has questioned the basis for fixing the damages or fine which is at twice the value of the loss caused to the Government. Counsel contended that the amount demanded is exorbitant and in fact, the removal of bark is not done by the petitioner or any one known to him. However, it is the settled position that the lessee is bound to protect trees belonging to the Government standing in the cardamom land. In fact, removal of 57 trees would have been done not in a day or two and the same is the result of several days' work by miscreants, whether with the knowledge of petitioner 2 or not. Since petitioner failed to protect the trees, penalty is rightly imposed on the petitioner under the Rules. The total demand is Rs.6,000/- + Rs.97,700/-. The removal of bark and cutting of branches have really destroyed the trees. Going by the number of trees damaged which are 57, the fine does not work out at the rate of even Rs.2,000/- per tree. In the circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the quantum of penalty fixed. However, having regard to the contentions raised and since the transaction took place several years back, I waive the interest for the balance 50% payable by the petitioner, if petitioner had remitted 50% in terms of interim order of this court dated 14.1.2002. However, if petitioner had not paid the amount under interim order, petitioner will be liable to pay the entire arrears with interest. The O.P. is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms