Dismissed

Land Revenue Commissioner v. Thressia

Kerala HC19 Jan 2009WA/145/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal by State officers challenges the quashing of penalty orders by the Learned Single Judge. The Court held that the penalty imposition under the Land Conservancy Act was quasi-criminal. Since no enquiry was held despite petitioner objections, the Single Judge was justified in interfering, and the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed upholding the Single Judge's order quashing the penalty.

Land Revenue Commissioner Vs Thressia — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶5

MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930

¶6

WA.No. 145 of 2007()

¶7

-------------------{IN OP.9069/2002 OF THIS COURT}

¶8

APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS:

¶9

¶10

THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA

¶16

RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS:

¶17

¶18

THRESSIA, W/O. OUSEPH, THAYYIL HOUSE, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK.

¶19

WA.No. 145 of 2007

¶20

:: 2 ::

¶21

WILSON, S/O. OUSEPH,

¶22

THAYYIL HOUSE, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK.

¶23

BY ADV.SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

J.B. KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J.

¶26

W.A.No.No.145 of 2007

¶27

Dated this the 19^th day of January, 2009.

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

GIRI, J.

¶30

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

¶31

W.A.NO.145/07

¶32

:: 2 ::

¶33

against, under Section 10 of the Act. The writ petition was, therefore, allowed and the impugned orders were quashed. Hence this appeal.

¶34

We have heard the learned Government

¶35

Pleader.

¶36

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.

¶37

W.A.NO.145/07

¶38

:: 3 ::

¶39

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.

¶40

The appeal is bereft of merit and hence dismissed.

¶41

Sd/( J.B. KOSHY) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

(V.GIRI)

JUDGE

sk/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge

Land Revenue Commissioner v. Thressia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Land Revenue Commissioner v. Thressia

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

M/S.Vijay Retreads Vs the Director

President, Tanalur Service Co-Op.Bank Vs Veliyath Abdu Razak

Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee Vs State of Kerala & Others

The State of Kerala Vs Mathew

Najmal Babu Vs the Bar Council of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs C.K.Vinod