The court upheld the damages for illegal tree cutting, emphasizing revenue authorities can't impose fines, and the need for fair assessment of damages considering the petitioner's circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

(S. MANU, J.)

The main relief sought in the writ petition is to quash Ext. P9 proceedings of the 2^nd respondent dated 25.10.2014.

2. Allegation against the petitioner is that, he had illegally cut 18 teak trees reserved to Government without permission, from the land assigned under the Kerala Land Assignment Act. The land was originally assigned to one Eramallan Kutty as per patta dated 1/1/1970. The said land was purchased by the petitioners son as per document No.1225/1986.

3. The teak tress cut by the petitioner were seized by the Village Officer. Seized timber was handed over to the petitioner on kaycheet. Thereafter, the 4^th respondent initiated action under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act.

4. Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.21501 of 2008 aggrieved by the action taken by the Village Officer. By judgment dated 28.07.2008, this Court directed to complete the proceedings within six weeks. Pursuant to the said direction from this Court, the 4^th respondent fixed the damages at Rs.6,98,025/- under Section 10 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. The value of timber was assessed at Rs.2,32,675/- and the damages as per Section 10 was fixed at three times the value of the timber as adjudged by the Collector. Fine of Rs.500/- was also imposed.

5. Petitioner invoked appellate and revisional remedies against the order of the 4^th respondent. However, the Appeal and Revision Petition did not yield any results. Petitioner hence approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.29287 of 2012. This Court disposed the said writ petition by Ext. P8 judgment dated 12.07.2013. This Court observed that the wife of the petitioner had filed an application for permission to cut the trees but the trees were cut before sanction was obtained. Further it was observed that, the trees were not sought to be cut down in a fraudulent manner or without letting it brought to the notice of the authorities concerned. It was also noticed by this Court that the logs were remaining in the property of the petitioner and they were not removed. This Court observed that fixing of maximum permissible damages under Section 10 was not mandatory and the matter required to be reconsidered. This Court also found that the power to impose fine was available only to the Magistrate and therefore imposition of fine of Rs.500/- by the Revenue Authorities was illegal. This Court directed the competent authority to reconsider the quantum of damages. Ext. P9 order was passed in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Ext. P8 judgment.

6. Perusal of Ext. P9 shows that the 2^nd respondent considered all relevant aspects. The 2^nd respondent has noticed that though an application for permission to cut down the trees was submitted, trees were cut down before any permission was obtained. It was also observed that since the timber was seized, no loss was caused to the Government. The 2^nd respondent also took note of the financial difficulties and advanced age of the petitioner. Finally, the damages was fixed at Rs.1,16,338/- being 50% of the value of the timber. On request made by the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent granted installment facility also. The amount was directed to be remitted in three monthly installments.

7. Dissatisfied with Ext. P9, this writ petition was filed. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, there was in fact no reason to proceed against the petitioner under the Land Conservancy Act. She submitted that the petitioner was under compulsion to cut and remove the trees as the property was required for