IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 26519 of 2011(L) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ CHACKO, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO, OLICKATHOTTIYIL HOUSE, URULANTHANNIKARA, KUTTAMPUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J., SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO, SRI.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO REVENUE, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA- 686 661. 3. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK-686 691. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.MOHAMMED SHAH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 26519 of 2011(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF GOVT. ORDER NO.G.O.RT.19/75/RD DT. 6.1.1975. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION LETTER NO.11239/78 DT. 7/4/78 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.C4 13548/00 DT. 12/11/03 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT. 3/12/08 BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DT. 2/4/09 BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A2 2215/09/K.DIS.DT. 1/2/2011 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT.15/10/10 ISSUED BY LAKESHORE HOSPITAL,COCHIN-40. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 26519 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is in possession of a property having an extent of one acre and situated in Sy.No.502/1, Block No.3 of Kuttampuzha Village, Kothamangalam Taluk. O.R.3/02 was registered against the petitioner on 19.2.02, on the allegation that he had cut and removed three Anjili trees from the property in question. Accordingly LC proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and in such proceedings it appears that the value of the timber appropriated was got assessed by the forest officials at Rs.1,64,000/-. It is so stated in the communication issued by the Tahsildar, Kothamangalam to the District Collector, on 26.4.2003. Based on the said quantification an amount of Rs.3,38,040/- was demanded by the petitioner and at that stage the petitioner filed appeal under the Land Conservancy Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer. W.P.(C) No. 26519 OF 2011 :2 : The RDO passed Ext.P6 order rejecting the appeal. As a result, the petitioner is now faced with the threat of recovery of the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,38,040/- and it is challenging the aforesaid proceedings this writ petition is filed. 2. The main contention raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the fixation of the value of the timber in question, was not done in compliance with the procedure laid down in S.10 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957. A statement has been filed by the respondents. In the said statement respondents take the stand that the land in question, is a Government Puramboke land and that the petitioner trespassed into the land and appropriated the timber in question. It is stated that therefore that orders were passed, levying penalty of Rs.3,38,040/- which was confirmed in appeal before the 2nd respondent. W.P.(C) No. 26519 OF 2011 :3 : 3. As already seen, the only contention that is urged before me for consideration is the manner in which the value of timber has been fixed. Fixation of the value of the trees in question has been done as per S.10 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act which reads thus: “Penalty for destruction or appropriation of trees- Any person who destroys or appropriates any useful tree belonging to the Government shall be liable for damages not exceeding three times the value of the tree as adjudged by the Collector, and shall also be liable on conviction by a Magistrate to be punished with imprisonment for a term extending to six months or with fine not exceeding five hundred rupees, or with both.” 4. A reading of the said section reveals that the damages not exceeding three times the value of the timber W.P.(C) No. 26519 OF 2011 :4 : is liable to be levied. However such damages has to be adjudged by the District Collector. The process of adjudging damages leviable u/s 10 of the Act has to be done with notice to the persons affected and in compliance with the principles of natural justice by affording the persons concerned an opportunity to be heard as well. In this case the procedure adopted by the respondents as reflected in the communication of the Tahsildar referred to above, is that the damages has been unilaterally quantified by the respondents. Such a procedure is against the terms of S.10 of the Act and therefore cannot be sustained. In that view of the matter this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P4, C-Form issued under Rule 11 by the Tahsildar and Ext.P6 order passed by the RDO confirming the same. 5. It is made clear that this judgment will not prevent the respondents from initiating steps in terms of W.P.(C) No. 26519 OF 2011 :5 : the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge