IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 145 of 2007()
1. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
... Petitioner
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE TAHSILDAR, MUVATTUPUZHA.
5. STATE OF KERALA,
Vs
1. THRESSIA, W/O. OUSEPH,
... Respondent
2. WILSON, S/O. OUSEPH,
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :19/01/2009
O R D E R
J.B. KOSHY, Ag.C.J. &
V.GIRI, J.
-------------------------
W.A.No.No.145 of 2007
-------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009.
JUDGMENT
GIRI, J.
The State and its officers, who were
arrayed as respondents in O.P.No.9069/02, are the
appellants herein. The respondents in the appeal,
the writ petitioners, challenged Exts.P2, P3, P5
and P7 orders, Ext.P2 order being passed by the
Tahsildar imposing a penalty on the writ
petitioners, under Section 10 of the Land
Conservancy Act {for short “the Act”}, allegedly
for cutting and removing two teak tress from a
puramboke property. Though statutory appeal and
revision were preferred by the writ petitioners
against the said order, the same were dismissed.
It is, therefore, the writ petition was filed
challenging the orders passed by the authorities.
The learned single Judge held that the imposition
of penalty was not preceded by any enquiry nor was
there any materials forthcoming to establish that
the petitioners are liable to be proceeded
W.A.NO.145/07
:: 2 ::
against, under Section 10 of the Act. The writ
petition was, therefore, allowed and the impugned
orders were quashed. Hence this appeal.
2. We have heard the learned Government
Pleader.
3. It is seen that though show cause
notices were issued by the Tahsildar alleging that
the writ petitioners have cut and removed two teak
trees from the puramboke land, the petitioners
appeared before the officer and took up a specific
contention that they had not cut and removed the
trees as alleged in the notice. It was contended
that the petitioners have no property in the
disputed area. It seems that, in spite of
objection having been taken, no enquiry, as such,
was conducted, no witnesses were examined, no
other independent material was produced and proved
to show that the petitioners were responsible for
cutting and removing the trees from the Government
land. Nevertheless, the Tahsildar proceeded to
pass the order imposing the penalty. Neither the
appellants nor the revisional authority considered
any of the contentions raised by the writ
petitioners.
W.A.NO.145/07
:: 3 ::
4. In these circumstances, the learned
single Judge was perfectly justified in
interfering with the orders impugned. The
procedure under Section 10 of the Act has been
held to be quasi criminal in character by this
court on more than one occasion. In such
circumstances, we do not find any reason to take a
different view from the one taken by the learned
single Judge.
The appeal is bereft of merit and hence
dismissed.
Sd/-
(J.B. KOSHY)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge