IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 OP.No. 4917 of 2003(J) ----------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.J.SEBASTIAN, KOCHUKANDATHINKARA, POONJAR NADUBHAGAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.PHILIP T.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL. 2. THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR AND REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 4. ROY JOSEPH, KANDATHIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKEKARA, MARADI VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 5. THOMAS MATHEW, NELLUVELIL, POONJAR VADAKKEKARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 6. MARIAMMA, W/O.THOMAS MATHEW, NELLUVELIL, POONJAR VADAKKEKARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 7. NAZAR, MANACKAL HOUSE, NADAKKAL KARA, ERATTUPETTA. MR. M.A. ASIF - GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO3 SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU FOR R7 SRI.CYRIAC KURIAN FOR R7 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 4917 of 2003 ORDER ON I.A.NO.782 OF 2003 AND C.M.P.NOS.8617/2003 IN O.P.NO.4917/2003 DISMISSED 28.5.2010. SD/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY R2 NO.K.DIS.4286/99/G DTD 25.2.2000. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY R1 IN C.C.1/94 (B.12.833/98) DATED 16.3.2001. EXT.P3: COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY R2 NO.G-2595/00 DTD 23.9.2002. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P. No. 4917 OF 2003 ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of MAY, 2010 J U D G M E N T The first respondent initiated proceedings against one Mariamma under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and Rules for cutting and selling a teak tree standing in old Survey No.673 (Re.Sy.No116/2) of Poonjar Vadakkekra Village. The first respondent by order dated 3.8.1999 in L.C.No.1/94 directed the Mariamma to pay Rs.26,222/- as value of the timber and Rs.250/- as fine. The said Mariamma filed an appeal before the second respondent – Asst.Collector, Pala. The second respondent dismissed the appeal by Ext.P1 order. Against the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2, she approached the third respondent - District Collector. The District Collector appears to have passed an order exonerating the said Mariamma from the proceedings and directing to initiate proceedings against one Thomas Mathew, the 5th respondent herein. The first respondent again called for reports from the Village Officer who apparently submitted a O.P.NO.4917/03 2 report stating that at the time of cutting of the tree, the property was in the possession of the petitioner and the 5th respondent. The petitioner filed a statement to the effect that he had nothing to do with the cutting of the trees and it was the 5th respondent who cut and sold the tree. But relying on the report of the Village Officer, the first respondent issued Ext.P2 order directing the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent to pay an amount of Rs.500/- as fine. The petitioner’s appeal before the RDO against Ext.P2 order was dismissed by Ext.P3 order. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging those orders. With the support of the counter affidavit of the second respondent the learned Government Pleader would argue in support of the impugned orders. 2. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 3. I am at a complete loss to understand how on such a flimsy material, proceedings of a quasi criminal nature as in this case could be taken against the petitioner. Admittedly, in the beginning, when proceedings were taken, the petitioner was nowhere in the picture. The entire proceedings were against Mariamma, the 6th respondent herein. From Ext.P2 O.P.NO.4917/03 3 order, I find that in the appeal filed by Mariamma before the Collector, Thomas Mathew admitted having cut and removed the tree. The petitioner has been roped in on the basis of a report of the Village Officer concerned, which Village Officer himself earlier reported that it was the Mariamma who cut down the tree. Apart from the report of the Village Officer, no other evidence whatsoever is available with the first respondent to fasten liability on the petitioner. In view of the same, I am satisfied that on such material, the petitioner could not have been imposed with the liability to pay three times the value of the timber and fine. That being so, Exts.P2 and P3 to the extent it fastens liability on the petitioner is quashed. However, it would be open to respondents 1 to 3 to recover the amount from the fifth respondent, who has not contested the matter. The original petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd O.P.NO.4917/03 4 O.P.NO.4917/03 5