IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 2947 of 2006(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.C.CHACKO, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.CHERIAN, MADATHIL HOUSE, AYYAPPANCOVIL VILLAGE KANCHIYAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, COLLECTORATE, PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI. 3. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, NEDUMKANDOM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYAPPANCOVIL VILLAGE, AYYAPPANCOVIL, IDUKKI DISTRICT. SMT.SMITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.2947/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF the NOTICE DATED 12/01/2006 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2 : COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 15/12/2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3(a) : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF the AUDIT REPORT. R3(b) : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15/12/2005. R3(c) : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12/01/2006. R3(d) : COPY OF the REPORT DATED 30/08/1997 OF THE FIRKA REVENUE INSPECTOR, VANDANMEDU. R3(e) : COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 12/11/97 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYAPPANCOIL. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No.2947 of 2006 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 29th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging demand of penalty on account of illegal mining of rock by him from puramboke land. Learned Government Pleader submitted that in spite of notice and service of adjudication order, petitioner has not challenged the same and challenge is only against recovery proceedings. The details of adjudication order furnished in Court show that 3rd respondent estimated the quantity of rock removed by petitioner at 1000 MTs. Obviously, the quantity is only a rough estimate and he has taken the quantity of the rock by weight. The 3rd respondent should have measured the pit formed on account of mining and taken the volume either in cubic feet or in cubic meter to determine the value and royalty payable. The case of the petitioner is that mining was done from the same property for the purpose of construction of the road. In any case, since the alleged mining took place 11 years back, I do not think any purpose will be served by ordering fresh adjudication after taking measurement onceagain. However, since the mining done by petitioner is rather proved, I reduce the penalty to Rs.7,500/- on condition that petitioner will make the payment on or WP(C) No.2947/2006 -2- before 30/11/2008. If payment is not made as above, then the reduction granted will stand vacated immediately on default and the entire demand can be recovered after 30/11/2008 from petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg