Judgment :- 1. The petitioner challenges the validity of his conviction under S.6 of the Travancore-Cochin Land Conservancy Act, 1951 and sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 25/-. The conviction was by the Tahsildar of the Meenachil Taluk, in L.C. No. 118 of 1954. The petitioner who is the 1st defendant in the case above mentioned took up the matter in appeal before the District Collector of Kottayam (L.C. Appeal No. 37 of 1955) but without success. 2. The Tahsildar summarised the facts of the case as follows: "The case against the three defendants is that they unauthorisedly cut down two Anjili trees from Thodu-poramboke S. No. 216/1 in Kondoor Village. First defendant is the owner of the adjacent land in Bharananganam village and he sold those trees along with the trees in his registered holding to the second defendant who is a timber merchant of Kottayam. The third defendant is an employee under the first defendant deputed by the first defendant who was present at the site when the second defendant caused the trees to be cut". and the District Collector in the following terms: "The appellant is the 1st defendant in L.C. Case No. 118/54 on the file of the Tahsildar, Meenachil. The case against him is that he sold two trees which stood in Thodu poramboke in S. No. 216/1 of Kondoor Village along with the trees in his registered holding to the 2nd defendant in the case. The case was detected by the Village Officer on a petition received by him about the cutting of the trees. The Revenue Supervisor inspected the cite, refixed the boundaries of the Thodu poramboke as per the original measurements and found that the trees stood on Thodu poramboke. The Tahsildar also inspected the site on 27.7.1954 and verified the mahazar and found it correct. The case was disposed of by convicting the defendants. The appellant was fined Rs. 25 and the other 2 defendants were fined Rs. 5 each. The timber was ordered to be sold in public auction. This was on 18.8.1954. The present appeal is against the above order of the Tahsildar". 3. The facts alleged and proved seem to have nothing to do with S.6 of the Travancore-Cochin Land Conservancy Act, 1951. 25 and the other 2 defendants were fined Rs. 5 each. The timber was ordered to be sold in public auction. This was on 18.8.1954. The present appeal is against the above order of the Tahsildar". 3. The facts alleged and proved seem to have nothing to do with S.6 of the Travancore-Cochin Land Conservancy Act, 1951. S.5 of that Act provides: "From and after the commencement of this Act, it shall not be lawful for any person to occupy a land which is the property of Government whether a Poramboke or not without permission from the Government or such officer of Government as may be empowered in this behalf". and S.6: "Whoever occupies a land which is the property of Government whether a poramboke or not contrary to S.5 shall be liable to pay such fine not exceeding two hundred rupees as may be imposed by the Collector. Explanation- A tenant unauthorisedly holding over after the expiry of his term of lease is liable to a fine within the meaning of this section". 4. There is no question of an "occupation" of any land in this case and it is impossible to consider the entry into survey plot No. 216/1 and the cutting of a couple of trees therein, even if proved, as an "occupation" of the land concerned. 5. It follows that the conviction under S.6 is wholly unwarranted and that this petition should be allowed. Judgment accordingly. 6. In the circumstances of the case and especially in view of the fact that the particular point which is the foundation of my judgment in favour of the petitioner was specifically raised for the first time only at the hearing before me I make no order as to costs.