Partly allowed

Nassar v. the Tahsildar

Kerala HC19 Nov 2007OP/4130/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Original Petitioner challenged an order demanding fine and compensation for illegal cutting of a teak tree from government land. The High Court noted the petitioner's acquittal in a related criminal theft case, stating it did not exempt liability under the Act. However, finding the demanded amount excessive, the Court reduced the payment to 7,500 rupees and granted a time extension, with the reduc

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was modified by reducing the fine and compensation to Rupees 7,500 and granting time until 15.2.2008 for payment.

Nassar Vs the Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1929

¶5

OP.No. 4130 of 2000(N)

PETITIONER:

NASEER, S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT VATTAKKAVIL HOUSE, OONNUKAL P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, KOTHAMANALAM.

¶14

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NERIAMANGALAM.

¶17

BY G.P. SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR

¶18

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER ON CMP NO.6730/2000 IN O.P. NO.4130/2000

¶20

DISMISSED:

¶21

19.11.2007

¶22

SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶25

P1: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.15.10.97 ISSUED BY R1.

¶26

P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.29.10.97.

¶27

P3: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE IN FORM B DT.13.10.98.

¶28

P4: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DT.28.10.98 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER.

¶29

P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.2.11.98.

¶30

P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.16.8.99.

¶31

P7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.11.1.2000.

¶32

P8: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE IN FORM C.

¶33

P9: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.27.1.2000.

¶34

TRUE COPY

¶35

PA TO JUDGE

¶36

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶37

.................................................................... O.P. No.4130 of 2000

¶38

Dated this the 19th day of November, 2007.

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

The petitioner is challenging order issued under Section 10 of

¶41

the Land Conservancy Act demanding fine and compensation for illegal cutting and removal of a teak tree from thodu puramboke which is Government land. I heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader and have also gone through the documents produced. Since the tree cut was from Government puramboke land, it was seized by the Village Officer and put up in auction. However, since the price offered was low, it was not sold. Thereafter the timber logs were found missing and petitioner was charged with theft of the same. Counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case charged in the matter. However, going by the findings of the lower authorities upto the Collector, I do not think the acquittal in the case before the Magistrate Court can save the petitioner from the liability under the Land Conservancy Act. There is no scope for this court to reappraise the evidence in this matter because all the lower authorities concurrently held against the

¶42

¶43

petitioner. However, I find that the amount demanded is three times the value of timber estimated by the department. In the circumstances and having regard to the acquittal in the criminal case, I modify the impugned orders by reducing the amount to rupees seven thousand five hundred and grant time to the petitioner till 15.2.2008 to make payment. However, if payment is not made before 15.2.2008, the reduction granted will stand cancelled and respondents will recover the entire arrears.

¶44

The O.P. is disposed of as above.

¶45

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge

¶46

pms

Nassar v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nassar v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabdul Rasheed Vs State of Kerala

K.v.Manikandaraja Vs District Collector, Palakkad

A.Nilavarneesa Vs Addl.Sales Tax Officer

Abdulrahman.B.a. Vs P.M.Babu

E.S.Jose Vs Tahsildar,Kanayannur

M/S.Gajanana Agencies Vs the Intelligence Officer,Kasaragod