IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 10607 of 2002(K) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.V.DAVIS, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.KOCHU VAREED, RESIDING AT MOOLAN HOUSE, NILESWARAM P.O., KALADY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MALAYATTOOR, KALADY. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, ALWAYE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP18734/02 & IA 2694/2004 IN OP 10607 OF 2002 DISMISSED 14.3.2008 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 14.9.2000 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PASS NO. 49/2000-01 DATED 20.11.2001 ISSUED BY THE KERALA FOREST DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF THE WOOD TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE PASS NO. 51/2000-01 DATED 22.12.2001 ISSUED BY THE KERALA FOREST DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF THE WOOD TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY FOREST OFFICIALS ON 14.1.2001 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.6.2001 ISSUED BY THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 2.8.2001 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.9.2001 ISSUED BY THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 11.2.2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.3.2002 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING EXT.P7 REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY DEMAND NOTICE PROPOSING TO ATTACH THE MOVABLES OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY DEMAND NOTICE PROPOSING TO ATTACH THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFENCE REPORT NO. 1/2001 SUBMITTED BY THE RANGE OFFICER BEFORE JFMC, PERUMBAVOOR. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.6.2004 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NSOS. B4-4111/-1 DATED 27.11.2004 OF CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE AII TRUE COPY OF REMARKS OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER. EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LOSS STATEMENT EXT.R3(a) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. G1.821/2001 DATED 20.8.2001 TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P. NO. 10607 OF 2002 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of Rs. 2,22,565/- reduced by security deposit of Rs. 8410/- towards loss caused to the forest department for cutting of cashew trees over and above the number of trees purchased by the petitioner in auction. Admittedly petitioner was sold 366 cashew trees which the petitioner cut and removed. However, on enquiry it was noticed that petitioner has, besides cutting the number of trees purchased by him, cut and removed 288 trees for which additional demand is raised towards compensation. Obviously petitioner enjoyed the patronage of forest officials or otherwise this large number of trees would not have been cut from the area under the forest department. Disciplinary proceedings are stated to be initiated against various officials. Even though this Court granted conditional stay during the pendency of the O.P., petitioner did not comply with the same and consequently stay has expired. Therefore before recovery authorities enforcing recovery 2 against the petitioner, petitioner paid the entire arrears. Demand is seen made based on a mahazar prepared wherein cutting of additonal number of trees stands proved. There is no justification for this Court to interfere with demand more so when the amount is paid by the petitioner. O.P. is accordingly dismissed. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3 4