M.K.MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, DESIGNS JOWLI v. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

1,40,000/- and a fine of Rs. 200/- for violation of Section 10 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957. On 14.9.1998 forest officials noticed that two valuable rose wood trees that were standing in the Kuthakapattom land held by the petitioner were felled and cut into 12 pieces and the timber logs were immediately taken over by the forest department. According to the petitioner, trees were cut in the night of 13.9.1998 by some miscreants without his knowledge or concent and thanks to the intervention by the neighbouring owners, the trees were not taken away by those who encroached and cut down the trees from the petitioner's property. According to him, the very next day morning, he went to forest range officer and informed him about the incident. Petitioner's case is that petitioner is in no way involved in the cutting of trees which is a criminal act by others, and petitioner 2 cannot be held responsible for the destruction of the trees.

Counsel contended that all proceedings are vitiated and without jurisdiction because without being found guilty of destruction of trees by the petitioner, penalty or fine cannot be levied on the petitioner. Government Pleader on the other hand contended that petitioner is bound to protect the valuable trees in the Kuthakapattom land and petitioner's failure is covered by mischief of Section 10 of the Act. He further contended that complicity of the petitioner cannot be ruled out because even according to the petitioner neighbouring owners only detected the felling of trees. The specific case of the petitioner that he immediately informed the Forest Range Officer is not denied by them in the counter affidavit. Further they have no case that petitioner is involved in the felling, cutting and sizing of the trees. Department has also no case that the petitioner made clandestine sale of the trees prior to felling of the same in the night.

Therefore at the maximum petitioner's involvement can only be a doubt and does not stand proved. There is force in the contention of the Government Pleader that being holder of Kuthakapattom land, petitioner is bound to protect trees, 3 which the petitioner has certainly failed, because even according to the petitioner, petitioner came to know about the felling and cutting of trees into 12 pieces from neighbours. In other words, valuable trees were destroyed on account of petitioner's failure to protect trees. Since there is no proof that petitioner has consciously done it, I feel leniency is called for. Therefore I modify Exts. P4 and P5 orders by reducing the penalty to Rs. 10,000/- with direction to the petitioner to remit the amount within six weeks from now. If payment is made as above, no interest will be recovered from the petitioner. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge 4