IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 OP.No. 24446 of 1999(I) ----------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O. LATE RAMAN, MULLAKKARAKALAM NOCHIPULLY P.O., MUNDOOR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD. 2. R.D.O. PALAKKAD. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU FOR R1 TO 4 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17 /10 /2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 24446 of 1999 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.41055 OF 1999 IN O.P.NO.24446 OF 1999 DISMISSED 17.10.2008 SD/ S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD 4.11.95 OF THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE APPEAL DT 2.12.95 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RDO. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF RDO DT. 6.3.97. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REVISION DT. 27.12.97 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXT.P5: COPY OF ORDER OF TALUK LAND BOARD DT. 25.3.1997. EXT.P6: COPY OF ORDER OF INTERIM STAY OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD 23.3.98 IN C.M.P.NO.9658/98 IN O.P.NO.5374/98. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT DT. 30.4.98. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 22.5.99 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER OF CONTEMPT CASE NO.295/98 DT. 25.6.99 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 7.7.99 OF THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.No. 24446 OF 1999 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the purchaser of certain land belonging to a declarant under the ceiling provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. That declarant was permitted to retain 7.50 acres of land and the balance was directed to be surrendered. The declarant approached this Court and obtained an order permitting her to opt for the lands to be retained by her. According to the petitioner, the declarant opted to retain certain lands including the land sold to the petitioner. However, the respondents did not permit the declarant to retain that land on the ground that the land had already been assigned to Adivasis. 2. A Contempt of Court case followed which resulted in Ext.P9 judgment of the Division Bench, in which, the Division Bench found that everything, what the District Collector had stated before the Court in respect thereof was false. A Commission was issued to inspect the properties in question. The Commissioner found that certain trees standing in the property O.P.No.24446/99 2 were cut down, which property the District Collector claimed he has allotted to Adivasis. The Court ultimately found that the allotment was only in paper and there was no physical allotment of the plot. On the ground that the petitioner was in possession of that property, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the ground that he cut down those trees from the properties belonging to the Government, which resulted in Exts.P1, P3, P4, P5, P8 and P10. The petitioner is challenging those orders. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader in the matter. 3. Although a counter affidavit has been filed, the respondents have not been able to satisfy me with any reliable evidence that it is the petitioner, who had cut down the trees in question. That being so, especially in view of Ext.P9 judgment, wherein the report of the Commissioner stated that certain trees were found to be cut down in the property in question when the Commissioner inspected the property, I am satisfied that the proceedings against the petitioner are liable O.P.No.24446/99 3 to be quashed, especially since there was no evidence to show that the petitioner was in possession of the property. Accordingly, Exts.P1, P3, P4, P5, P8 and P10 are quashed. If the land purchased by the petitioner is included in the 7.50 acres allowed to be retained by the declarant in the Ceiling Case No.LB 701/73, the petitioner shall be allowed to have possession of the properties in accordance with the purchase made by him from the original declarant. The original petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P.No.24446/99 4