IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 OP.No. 24451 of 1999(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ABDUL KAREEM, S/O. M.PEERU MOHAMED ROWTHER, KALLAM PARAMBIL, THIRUVIZHIYAD VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.H.BADARUDDIN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SUB COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTUR. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUVIZHIYAD, CHITTUR TALUK. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER K.SANIL KUMAR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.41052/1999 IN OP. 24451/1999 DISMISSED 28/08/2009 SD/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- PROCEEDINGS OF TAHSILDAR LC 104/92 DTD. 22.4.94. P2:- PROCEEDINGS OF SUB COLLECTOR NO.A 5976/94 DTD. 20.5.94 AND THAT OF THE REDO PALAKKAD DTD. 4.6.99. P3:- ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PALAKKAD NO.LRG 4 26991/99 DTD. 17.8.99. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P.No.24451 of 1999-J. = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner cut down a mango tree and a Thanni from the property said to be comprised in survey No.631 of Thiruvizhiyad village. Alleging that the trees cut down by the petitioner belong to the government, the respondents initiated action and by Ext.P1 order, the 3rd respondent imposed a penalty. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the 2nd respondent. By Ext.P2 order the appeal was dismissed. Assailing Ext.P2 a revision was preferred before the first respondent. It was dismissed by Ext.P3. Challenging Exts.P1 to P3 the petitioner has come up before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Following are the prayers made in the writ petition. 1. issue a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of the respondents 1 to 3 that is Exts.P1 to P3 herein. 2. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, remanding the Land Conservancy case cited in Exts.P1 to P3 for a fresh disposal in the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble High Court reported in 1998(1) KLJ 595. 3. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to give the O.P.No.24451 of 1999-J. -: 2 :- petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard to establish his case that the disputed land and trees were a private property and not public/poramboke/property & land. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The bone of contention is regarding the ownership of the land from where the trees were cut down. According to the petitioner, the trees were cut down from his property. On the other hand, the respondents would contend that those trees were situated in the government poramboke land. Ownership and identity of land being a dispute on facts, it could not adjudicated without evidence. With the pleadings on record, this Court cannot come to a conclusion regarding the title and identity of the property from where the trees were cut down. On going through Exts.P1 to P3, prima facie there is no error in Ext.P1 to P3 so long as the petitioner fails to establish his title over the property from where the trees were cut down. There is nothing to suggest that Exts.P1 to P3 are anyway erroneous, illegal or arbitrary. 5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not obtained sufficient opportunity to establish his right through civil suit or other appropriate proceedings and this petition may be O.P.No.24451 of 1999-J. -: 3 :- disposed without prejudice to his contentions. The learned Government Pleader has no objection to such a course. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner, if any, to move the civil court or appropriate forum to establish his right, if any, and the cause of action so survive. The petitioner also would be at liberty to seek for return of the fine amount, if any paid, provided he could establish his right over the disputed property. No costs. Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/- /// true copy ///