SASIDHARAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the basis of a report and mahazar prepared by a Village Officer and forwarded to the Tahsildar,Kottarakkara,a Land Conservancy case numbered as L.C.82/71 was taken against one Issac Pappachan and two others.The case was persons named in the report and mahazar encroached upon on the Government land in Survey No.457/1A of Mylom village and cut and attempted to remove four black wood trees standing thereon.The report showed that this Issac Pappachan was the instigator of this cutting and six other persons were named therein who had taken part in this operation.The three persons including Pappachan to whom notices under section 12 of the Land Conservancy Act had been issued appeared before the Tahsildar and seems to have filed statements denying the charge against them and at the same time accusing the present petitioners who are personnel belonging to the Revenue Department as those who were involved in the cutting of trees.

(2.) NOTICES were then issued to the petitioners in what is prescribed as the B form under the Act.The notices were under section 12 of the Act.They appeared before the Tahsildar who recorded their statements.They denied having any knowledge of the occurrence.

(3.) THE petitioners were not,it is stated,even served with the copy of this Order.They came to know of it only when the Tahsildar issued notice to them in Form C calling upon them to remit the amount awarded as damages as per Ext.P -3.They then appealed before the Revenue Divisional Officer,who dismissed the same.In regard to the contention that the order of the Tahsildar was vitiated by violation of the rules of natural justice the appellate authority said that the Tahsildar need only comply with rules provided under the Land Conservancy Rules.How that Authority had approached these questions could best be pointed out by extracting the following passage from his order. The records would show that the appellants who were given an opportunity did not take pains to adduce evidence against the materials gathered by the Tahsildar.There is no force in the argument that the burden to supply the appellants with the materials gathered was with the Tahsildar.Actually the ball was in their court and the appellants should have realised that the Tahsildar had strong evidences against them.They have failed evidently to probe deeper,presumably taking things in a lighter vein.I can only say that the omission on the part of the appellants in not having taken up the opportunity given to them when they were served with a B form notice cannot be made good at this stage.