IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30412 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------- SHAJI K.N, S/O.NARAYANAN KALLUMOLAYIL HOUSE, KIDANGANAD AMSOM DESOM, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENNUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD. 3. TAHASILDAR, SULTHAN BATHERY WAYANAD DISTRICT. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER KIDANGANAD, WAYANAD DISTRICT 5. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 to R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 30412 of 2010 B ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 13th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims ownership over 0.2064 hectres of land in R.S.No.188/2 of Block No.14 of the Kidanganad village of Sulthan Bathery Taluk. According to the petitioner, this property devolved on him by a deed of partition. Based on a report made by the Village Officer that the petitioner cut and removed a rose wood tree which stood in the property, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. Accordingly, Tahsildar issued notice calling upon the petitioner to appear before him and accordingly, petitioner appeared before the Tahsildar. 2. The petitioner admits that during the course of this proceedings, he had signed a paper which, according to the petitioner, was for evidencing his attendance during the enquiry. However, respondents contend that the petitioner WPC.30412/10 : 2 : voluntarily gave a statement admitting his guilt. On that basis, Ext.P3 order was passed by the Tahsildar, requiring the petitioner to remit thrice the value of the tree, amounting to Rs.1,45,085/-. Immediately thereafter, petitioner filed Ext.P7 application before the Tahsildar stating that he did not make any admission as mentioned in Ext.P3 order and on that basis, sought cancellation of the order. However, that application was rejected by the Tahsildar as per Ext.P8 proceedings. 3. Aggrieved by Ext.P8, petitioner filed Ext.P10 appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. However, by Ext.P5 order, relying on Ext.P9 report of the Tahsildar, the RDO rejected the appeal. In this order, the RDO has relied on the admission said to have been made by the petitioner before the Tahsildar. Aggrieved by Exts.P3 and P5, petitioner filed Ext.P11 revision before the District Collector which was also rejected by Ext.P6 order, again relying on the admission allegedly made by the petitioner. Now, the petitioner is called WPC.30412/10 : 3 : upon to remit the amount mentioned in Ext.P3 and it is challenging the aforesaid proceedings, this writ petition is filed. 4. A reading of Ext.P3 shows that the main circumstance relied on against the petitioner is the alleged admission stated to have been made by him before the Tahsildar. Although in Ext.P7, in clear terms, the petitioner has denied of having made the alleged admission, neither in Ext.P5 appellate order nor in Ext.P6 revisional order, is there any consideration of the aforesaid case of the petitioner. On the other hand, if the case of the petitioner that he did not make any such admission was accepted, the outcome of the appeal and revision would not have been the same. In that view of the matter, the orders are bad for not considering relevant issues and hence, I feel the matter needs to be reconsidered. 5. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition setting aside Ext.P6 revisional order passed by the District Collector WPC.30412/10 : 4 : and directing the District Collector to reconsider Ext.P11 revision filed by the petitioner, with notice to him. While considering the revision as above, Ext.P7 filed by the petitioner before the Tahsildar shall also be duly adverted to. Orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. In the meantime, further proceedings for recovery of the amount mentioned in Exts.P3 and P5 shall be kept in abeyance. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment, writ petition and I.A.Nos.14058 and 14059 of 2010 before the District Collector for compliance. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge