High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-06-08Disposed of; remanded for fresh proceedings

Jiji V. Alexander v State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 9560 of 2010 (T)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2017-06-08
Court Decision / Holding: Exts.P6, P7 and P9 are set aside and the Additional Tahsildar, Punalur, is directed to take fresh proceedings, specifically noticing the land on which the tree was existing when it was cut. The writ petition stands disposed of with no costs.
Final Disposition: Disposed of; remanded for fresh proceedings

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jiji V. Alexander

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Chief Secretary to Government
District Collector, Kollam
Sub Collector, Kollam
Additional Tahsildar, Pathanapuram, Punalur
Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. C. Khalid
• Sri. N. Gopinatha Panicker
• Smt. Namitha Jyothish
• Sri. T. P. Sajid

Counsels for Respondents

• Government Pleader Smt. A. C. Vidhya

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges liability imposed by Ext.P6 for loss to the Government arising from the cutting of an Anjili tree on land assigned to the petitioner, and the confirmations of Exts.P7 and P9. The petitioner’s predecessor held 12 cents of property (Exts.P2–P3), and the petitioner claims to have purchased 33 cents contiguous to the assigned land (Survey Nos. 976/1, 1004/1, 1005/1). The dispute centers on whether an Anjili tree existed on the assigned property and whether the petitioner or his predecessor can be held liable for the loss. The petitioner contends that Exts.P2–P3 were issued in October 2002 and do not show a standing Anjili tree on the assigned land; the Anjili tree in question was reportedly on adjacent land acquired by the petitioner. The Government contends that under Appendix VIII of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, the assignee must take care of trees and cannot remove them without Government sanction and compensation; Appendix VII and Clauses with reference to royal trees clarify treatment of trees, with Anjili treated under specific provisions. A mahazar dated 09.10.2002 is cited, suggesting demarcation and mention of the tree, but it is unclear whether the tree stood on the assigned land. The court notes unresolved questions about land title and pending conservancy proceedings, and remands for fresh proceedings by the Additional Tahsildar, Punalur, to determine whether the tree existed on the land at the time it was cut and to consider the pending land-conservancy issues. The writ petition is disposed of without costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Appendix VIII of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964Appendix VII of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964Clauses (12) and (13) of the relevant rulesKuthakapattam Rules, 1947

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner's case rests on Exts.P2–P3 showing assignment of land and the absence of any indication of an Anjili tree on the assigned property; the Mahazar and receipts (Exts.P4–P5) relate to purchases and demarcation, suggesting the tree may have been on adjoining land; the petitioner asserts title to 33 cents contiguous to the assigned land and contends that liability for the tree's removal cannot be proved on the basis of the documents alone. The petition urges remand to determine whether the tree was standing on the assigned land at the time of cutting and to assess the relevance of pending land-conservancy proceedings, along with proper application of Kerala Land Assignment Rules, including Appendices VII–VIII and the Kuthakapattam Rules, with a view to a fair apportionment of liability if warranted.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argues that the assignee must take care of trees under Appendix VIII and cannot remove a tree without sanction or payment for the loss, and that Anjili is not a listed royal tree but is addressed under the general provisions for trees in the assignment rules. The Respondents contend that the mahazar records and the survey/assignment history imply the tree's presence in the land described, and that the petitioner's purchase of contiguously situated land complicates title and liability; the Government seeks to sustain the impugned orders unless proper proof of the tree's location and the land title is established, and emphasises the need to consider subsequent Conservancy proceedings.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Kerala v. Sreedharan Nair	1998 (1) KLT 524	Positive	The court refers to this decision and directs that revision be considered in accordance with its dictum, using it as guiding authority for the reconsideration of the case, though previous orders did not apply the dictum.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Jiji V. Alexander v State of Kerala and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/18TH JYAISHTA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 9560 of 2010 (T)** **---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER:** ## **-----------** **JIJI V.ALEXANDER, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.V.C.ANIYANKUNHU, VALAPPARAMBIL HOUSE KALLUVETTAMKUZHI, THINKALKARIKKOM VILLAGE KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.C.KHALID** **SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH SRI.T.P.SAJID** **RESPONDENTS:** **-------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE** - **CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM.** **3. SUB COLLECTOR,CIVIL STATION,KOLLAM.** **4. ADDTIONAL TAHSILDAR,PATHANAPURAM, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **5. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.A.C. VIDHYA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 9560 of 2010 (T)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** - **P1: COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.889/2002 DATED 06.11.2002 BY RAMAKRISHNA IYER** - **P2: COPY OF THE ORIGINAL LICENSE NO.A3-4465/95 IN R.S.976/1 DATED 31.10.2002 ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR, PATHANAPURAM TALUK** - **P3: COPY OF THE ORIGINAL LICENSE NO.A3-4465/95 IN R.S.1005/1 DATED 31.10.2002 ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR, PATHANAPURAM TALUK** - **P4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.1197252 DATED 06.11.2002 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, KULATHUPUZHA** - **P5: COPY OF THE RECOPT NO.1197253 DATED 06.11.2002 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, KULATHUPUZHA** - **P6: COPY OF THE ORDER IN L.C. CASE NO.55/02 DATED 16.01.2003 OF ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, PATHANAPURAM** - **P7: COPY OF THE L.C.APPEAL NO.B740/2003/K.DIS DATED 03.07.2003 BEFORE SUB COLLECTOR, KOLLAM** - **P8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.08.2008 IN W.P.(C) NO.4637/2005 (b) BEFOE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT** - **P9: COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER IN LRK3-42824/2008 DATED 03.12.2009 BY THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **JJJ** ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 9560 of 2010 (T) -----------------------------------------Dated: 08[th] June, 2017 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is aggrieved with the orders passed at Ext.P6, as confirmed in Exts.P7 and P9. The subject matter of the dispute is the loss caused to the Government for reason of cutting and removing an Anjili tree, alleged to be existing in the property assigned to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner's predecessor-in-interest was assigned 12 cents of property, as evidenced from Exts.P2 and P3. The petitioner is also alleged to have purchased 33 cents, lying contiguously with the assigned land, in Survey No.1004/1. The assigned lands are in Survey nos.976/1 and 1005/1. The petitioner was granted conveyance of the assigned land ## **W.P.(C) No. 9560/2010** **-2-** by Ext.P1 which is seriously disputed by the State since the assigned lands were not transferable. It is also submitted that Land are Conservancy Proceedings pending against the petitioner, which we are not concerned with in the present writ petition, which is confined to the liability cast on the petitioner by the impugned orders. 3. The petitioner is alleged to have cut an Anjili tree standing in the assigned property. The petitioner's contention is that Exts.P2 and P3 are issued in the month of October, 2002, which does not show the said tree standing in the assigned property. It is submitted that an Anjili tree, which was remaining in the assigned land was removed and loss mulcted on the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest as per Ext.P3. The receipt of payment is also evident from Ext.P5. Hence, the Anjili tree was one standing in the 33 cents, which he purchased from his predecessor-in-interest. ## **W.P.(C) No. 9560/2010** **-3-** 4. The impugned order at Ext.P6 shows that an Anjili tree was cut on 20.11.2002 and the Village Officer, on information, seized the wooden logs and entrusted it to a third party. Later, the logs were removed from the custody of the third party and taken out of the property by the petitioner. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for loss caused and Ext.P6 has been issued. Ext.P6 was challenged in appeal, which was rejected by Ext.P7. The petitioner was before this Court in a writ petition, which was disposed of directing consideration of the revision in accordance with **State of Kerala v. Sreedharan Nair** **– 1998 (1) KLT 524** . The revision was rejected at Ext.P9, but, however, without consideration of the dictum as laid down in the cited decision. 5. The learned Government Pleader submits that in accordance with Appendix VIII of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 ('Rules' for short), the assignee ## **W.P.(C) No. 9560/2010** **-4-** had to take care of the trees standing in the assigned property and none could remove the tree without sanction from the Government and without compensating the Government for the loss caused. It is also submitted that Appendix VII of the Rules does not indicate that an Anjili tree, is required to be shown therein; and clause (12) refers to all trees standing in the property and the loss caused by its removal. Clause (13) speaks of royal trees, in which Anjili is not included and the Schedule also indicates only mentioning of fruit bearing trees, is the specific contention taken. 6. Be that as it may, the fundamental aspect to be considered in the writ petition is as to whether there is a tree existing in the property assigned especially in the context of the lands assigned lying contiguously to properties in which petitioner has title. The learned Government Pleader relies on a mahazar dated 09.10.2002, produced along with memo dated ## **W.P.(C) No. 9560/2010** **-5-** 13.07.2017 to contend that the assigned land has been clearly demarcated and there is a mention of an Anjili tree in the said property. The mahazar is in accordance with the Kuthakapattam Rules, 1947; by which the Surveyor has to periodically survey the property and prepare the mahazar. This was prepared just before the cutting of the tree was effected. 7. Even then the relevant factor is that the petitioner had purchased 33 cents, which he owned by himself, and had possession of together with the assigned lands. It is not clear from the mahazar or from the impugned order as to whether the tree was existing in the assigned lands. That is a relevant factor, which has to be examined before deciding the liability for loss caused to the Government. The learned Government Pleader also has a dispute with respect to the title of the purchased land, which has to be examined in accordance with reference to any land conservancy ## **W.P.(C) No. 9560/2010** **-6-** proceedings pending as on today. These considerations have not, at all, been addressed by the lower authorities. In the circumstance of the relevant considerations having not adjudicated upon, it is only proper that the matter be remanded back to the original authority. Exts.P6, P7 and P9 are set aside and the Additional Tahsildar, Punalur, is directed to take fresh proceedings, specifically noticing the land on which the tree was existing when it was cut. The writ petition would stand disposed of. No costs. Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj/sb 14/7/17