VENKITASUBBAN Vs. KERALA LOK AYUKTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext. P2 order passed by the fifth respondent under S. 10 of the Land Conservancy Act, fixing damages for the trees cut down by the petitioner, Ext. P3 order passed by the fourth respondent in appeal declining interference and Ext. P4 order affirming the same by the second respondent in revision are under challenge in this Writ Petition. Petitioner's son, who is no more, had purchased 31.500 cents of land in Sy. No. 568/6 of Trissilery Village as per sale deed bearing No. 1225/1986 of S.R.O., Mananthavady, vide Ext. P1. The said property along with a larger extent was in fact assigned by the Government, in the name of Ayarkudy Erumoolan of Thirunelli way back in 1966, as per Patta No. DK 1020/64 dated 24.12.2006. As per the said Patta, no tree was shown as in existence on the date of assignment.

(2.) Quite after a long time from the date of purchase of the property covered by Ext. P1, the petitioner's wife submitted an application before the fifth respondent for permission to cut down some teak trees standing in the property, for widening of the road lying in front, as requested by the Secretary of the concerned Grama Panchayath. Admittedly, no order was passed thereon. Subsequently, the said trees were cut down by the petitioner, upon which a report was forwarded by the Village Officer to the fifth respondent, which led to proceedings taken by the fifth respondent under Land Conservancy Act for imposition of damage and penalty. This made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 21501/2008, which was disposed of, as per Ext. P7 judgment dated 28.7.2008 directing the fifth respondent herein to finalise the proceedings within the time as specified.

(3.) Pursuant to the above verdict, the fifth respondent, as per Ext. P2, fixed the value of 18 teak trees cut down by the petitioner as Rs. 2,32,675/- as assessed by the Divisional Forest Officer and the petitioner was directed to satisfy 'three times' of the said value i.e., Rs. 6,98,025/- along with Rs. 500/- towards fine under S. 10 of the Act. The petitioner challenged the same by way of appeal preferred before the fourth respondent, who declined interference and the appeal was dismissed as per Ext. P3 order dated 7.1.2010. The petitioner took up the matter further, before the second respondent, by way of re vision under S. 16 of the Act and after considering the same, the revisional authority also declined interference, vide Ext. P4 order dated 31.12.2010.