IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 3170 of 2004(B) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ----------------- C.M.SYEDKUNJU, CHOORAVELIL HOUSE, SALLIYAMPARA, VELLATHOOVAL, DEVIKULAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 3170/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. COPY OF THE LIST OF TREES IN RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OF T.P VARGHESE DT. 4/08/99. EXT.P1. COPY OF THE LIST OF TREES IN RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OF JOSEPH MATHEW DT. 4/08/99. EXT.P1B. COPY OF THE TRESS IN RESEPCT TO THE PROPERTY OF PRASAD JOHN DT. 4/08/99. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K.DIS 1436/2003 B5 DT. 26/3/2003 OF THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 22/4/2003, BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B5/3816/03 K.DIS DT. 11/11/03 BY THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. True copy Tga K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Writ Petition (C) No.3170 of 2004-B -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment The writ petitioner purchased the timber standing in the patta lands of M/s.T.P.Varghese, Joseph Mathai and Prasad John in Devikulam taluk. After obtaining the power of attorney from the said land owners, he moved the revenue authorities for cutting and removing the trees which were standing in a dangerous condition. While so, steps were taken to cancel the pattas of the above said three persons. Those proceedings were challenged before this court and this court, on finding that the trees were standing in a dangerous condition, directed to sell them in public auction and to keep the amount in a separate account so that it can be apportioned after the final disposal of the Writ Petition. The trees were auctioned for an amount of Rs.11,79,450/-. The proceedings to cancel the patta finally ended in favour of the patta holders. The Land Revenue Commissioner restored their pattas though, initially they were cancelled. It was finally found that the value of the timber will go to the Government and the patta holders were eligible to get only the balance amount. Tahsildar, Devikulam forfeited an amount of Rs.4,02,976/- towards WPC 3170/04 2 the value of the trees and Rs.78,584/- towards interest. The balance amount was paid to the patta holders. The petitioner raised a grievance before the competent authority that the value of the timber was fixed without taking note of the damages found in them, which has been noticed in Ext.P1. The damaged logs will fetch only a lower price. Since that relevant fact was not taken into account, the fixation of the timber value at Rs.4,02,976/- was not correct, it was pointed out. The petitioner prayed for rectifying that mistake. The said application was rejected by Ext.P4 order dated 11.11.2003, stating that the price was fixed after the quality of the timber was ascertained by the Forest Department. Since the trees were already removed, it was not possible to have a second look in the matter. On the above grounds, the petitioner's representation was rejected by Ext.P4. This Writ Petition is filed, challenging Ext.P4 and seeking consequential reliefs. According to the petitioner, even if the timber is removed, in view of the remarks in Ext.P1, the extent of damaged timber can be found out and pro-rata reduction could be made in the timber value appropriated to the Government. 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit resisting the prayers in the Writ Petition. The ground taken in Ext.P4 is reiterated in the counter WPC 3170/04 3 affidavit also. 3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. In Ext.P4, it is stated that the value of the timber has been fixed by the Forest Department, after taking into account the quality of the timber. Further, the petitioner has chosen not to file any reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents on 15.09.2004. In view of the above position, this court cannot interfere with Ext.P4 by which the claim of the petitioner to reduce the timber value appropriated to the Government, has been rejected. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. 23.05.2008 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE sta WPC 3170/04 4