IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 9879 of 2009(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JAMES , S/O. VARKEY PUTHIYAKUNNEL HOUSE, PAINGOTTOOR P.O., KADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW SKARIA SRI.K.J.JOSEMON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, RP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER , LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 9879 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Sri. Mathew Skaria, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. P.N.Santhosh, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. Proceeding were initiated against the petitioner by the Tahsildar, Kothamangalam, under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957, on the allegation that he had cut and removed two Anjily trees from revenue poramboke. The Tahsildar imposed on the petitioner, besides the value of the trees, the sum of Rs.500/- as fine. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. By Ext.P4 order passed on 2.2.2006, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner thereupon moved the District Collector by filing a revision petition. By Ext.P5 order passed on 16.3.2007, the revision petition was dismissed. The petitioner moved the Commissioner of Land Revenue by filing a revision petition. By Ext.P6 order passed on 22.1.2009, the revision petition was also dismissed. Hence this writ petition challenging Exts.P3, P4, P5 & P6. W.P.(C) No. 9879/09 2 3. The petitioner contends that he and his brother have title to and are in possession of 6.750 cents of land situated in Survey No.829/1/13 of Kadavoor Village, Kothamangalam Taluk and that Anjily trees were not cut and removed from revenue poramboke, as alleged by the official respondents. Relying on Ext.P7 report submitted by the Village Officer, the petitioner contends that in the absence of a survey by the Surveyor demarcating the lands admittedly belonging to the petitioner and his brother, the authorities acted arbitrarily and illegally in holding that trees were cut from revenue poramboke. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit justifying the stand taken by them. Relying on Ext.R5 (a) it is contended that the petitioner had conceded that the trees were cut and removed from poramboke land. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. Though at first blush, Ext.R5(a) would convey the impression that the petitioner had cut and removed two Anjily trees from the revenue poramboke, on a close reading, it is evident that he had only stated what the Tahsildar W.P.(C) No. 9879/09 3 had informed him. It is not disputed that before the petitioner was proceeded against and penalised, his lands situated in Survey No.829/1/13 and described in Ext.P1 settlement deed had not been measured and demarcated. No attempt was made by the revenue authorities to determine whether the Anjily trees cut and removed by the petitioner were standing in the lands covered by Ext.P1 settlement deed. The petitioner had specifically pointed out to the authorities concerned that the he and his brother own 6.750 cents of land in Survey No.829/1/13 of Kadavoor village. In my opinion, as the petitioner had title to a portion of land in Survey No.829/1/13, the authorities sought to have got his land surveyed and determined whether the Anjily trees that were cut and removed were standing therein. No attempt has been made by any of the authorities to identify the land from which the Anjily trees were cut and removed. I am therefore of the opinion that Exts.P3, P4, P5 and P6 cannot be sustained. I accordingly allow this writ petition, set aside the impugned orders and remit the case back to the Tahsildar, Kothamangalam. The Tahsildar shall cause a survey of the land described in Ext.P1 W.P.(C) No. 9879/09 4 settlement deed to be conducted by the Taluk Surveyor, with notice to the petitioner and in his presence, and shall identify the spot from which the trees were cut and removed. The petitioner shall co- operate with the survey and shall produce a copy of Ext.P1 before the Taluk Surveyor at the time of survey. If after such survey, it is found that the petitioner had cut and removed Anjily trees from revenue poramboke and not from the land in his possession and described in Ext.P1, it will be open to the Tahsildar to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. The contentions of both sides on the merits are kept open. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps