In quasi-criminal proceedings under Section 10 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, strict proof and fair opportunity to contest charges are essential to uphold due process.

JUDGMENT

Dated this 19^th day of January, 2026

1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the imposition of damages on the petitioner under Section 10 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 , alleging cutting and destroying trees from Government land. The Writ is filed essentially challenging Ext.P14 Order issued by the seventh respondent Tahsildar, which is confirmed by Ext.P19 Appellate Order of the Revenue– Divisional Officer, Palakkad, and which is further confirmed by Ext.P28 Order of the third respondent - District Collector, Palakkad. The seventh respondent passed Ext.P14 Order under of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, imposing an amount of Rs.4,08,810/- as damages on the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner has unauthorisedly cut and removed 317 useful and valuable trees worth Rs.1,36,270/- belonging to the Government, which were standing in PWD Purambokku in Survey No.714/10 of Kizhakkancherry Amsom of Kizhakkancherry-II village.

2. The short facts necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition are that: The properties in survey Nos.714/12, 714/22, 714/24 & 714/26 of Kizhakkancherry-II village in Alathur Taluk were in the possession of late Kuttan @ Sankaran Nair, who was the paternal grandfather of respondent Nos.11 to 14, on tenancy rights. The father of the respondent Nos.11 to 14 is Rajan Nair. The Government acquired 19.92 Acres of land belonging to the said Kuttan for the purpose of the Mangalam Dam Hydro-Electric Project as per Award No.19/1956. It is the case of the petitioner that 22.50 Acres of land, which belonged to the said Kuttan, remained unacquired, and it was lying on a hilltop and situated within the catchment area of Mangalam Dam. The said 22.50 Acres of land later became inaccessible as it got surrounded by the Mangalam Dam Reservoir. The said Kuttan assigned his property to his son Rajan Nair as per Sale Deed No.1027/1962. Subsequently, the said Rajan Nair and his children purchased the rights of the landlord with respect to the said 22.50 Acres of land by various Sale Deeds. The case of the petitioner is that it is Rajan Nair and his children who cut the trees in the said 22.50 Acres of land, and the petitioner has not cut or destroyed any tree in the said 22.50 Acres of land. The petitioner was not given an effective opportunity to prove his case before the seventh respondent, as the petitioner was not given proper notice before the passing of the Ext.P14 Order.

3. The respondents have not chosen to file any Counter Affidavit to the Writ Petition. Since the petitioner strongly disputed the fact that the Ext.P14 Order was passed after giving notice to the petitioner, this Court passed an Order dated 29.10.2025 directing the learned Special Government Pleader (Revenue) to make available the file relating to Ext.P14 to verify whether notice was given to the petitioner in the proceedings leading to Ext.P14. The learned Special Government Pleader filed a Memo dated 07.01.2026 producing the Statement prepared by the Deputy Collector (LR) for the District Collector, Palakkad, reporting that the files could not be traced out in spite of their efforts to trace out the same. Accordingly, this Court heard the Writ Petition with the available records.

4. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. C.J. Joy, and the learned Special Government Pleader (Revenue), Sri. M.H. Hanilkumar.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner cited the decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Sreedharan Nair [1998 (1) KLT 524], in which this Court held that the nature of the proceeding under Section 10 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act is quasi criminal and t