Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 4816
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
V. Lakshminarayanan, J
Karmegam – Appellant
Versus
The Tahsildar, Taluka Office, Melur, Madurai District. – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.3512 of 2025 | W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2498 & 2500 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Srikanth
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Kannan Additional Government Pleader
Unauthorized cutting of government property constitutes theft, and lack of permission confirms liability.
Headnote:The petition under Article 226 sought to quash the order dated 28.12.2024 by the Tahsildar imposing a penalty for unauthorized tree cutting, claiming violation of natural justice. The petitioner cut trees belonging to the Government without permission. The court found no basis for interference with the imposition of penalty. The court highlighted the act constituted theft, underscoring the petitioner's knowledge of the ownership of the trees. The writ petition was dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the petition and representation by counsel. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. unauthorized tree cutting on government land. (Para 2 , 3 , 6) |
| 3. court's reasoning on theft and penalty. (Para 5) |
| 4. final ruling and dismissal of the petition. (Para 7) |
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed seeking certiorari to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.
4909/2024/R1, dated 28.12.2024.
2.The petitioner, without authorization, cut Usilai trees on the banks of Marukal. It is not in dispute that he cut large trees and thirteen smaller ones. He is not the owner of the trees. The trees were grown on the Government poramboke land and the Government was the owner of the trees. No permission was sought for from the Government prior to cutting the same.
3.The Tahsildar, on coming to know of this fact, imposed penality of Rs.16,000/- under the impugned order. Pleading that natural justice has been violated, the present writ petition has been presented.
4.I heard, Mr.S.Srikanth, for the petitioner and Mr.Kannan Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
5.The act of the petitioner in removing valuable trees belonging to the Government is an act of theft. The Tahsildar seems to have taken a very lenient approach and has only imposed cost instead of lodging a complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner should thank his stars that the Government did not take a tough position against him. Per tree the Tahsildar has valued it at Rs.200/- and has given a detailed calculation and imposed the penalty of Rs.16,000/-. The plea that there is a violation of natural justice certainly does not apply to him.
6.This is for the simple reason, the petitioner being well aware that the trees belonged to the Government proceeded to cut and remove the same.
7.In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
07.02.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes LR To
1. The Tahsildar, Taluka Office, Melur, Madurai District.
2. The Revenue Inspector, Melavalavu, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.
3. The Village Administrative Officer, Sekkipatti, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
LR Dated : 07.02.2025
