IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 24451 of 1999(J)
1. ABDUL KAREEM
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIST.COLLECTOR,PKD.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.H.BADARUDDIN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :28/08/2009
O R D E R
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 ///