Judgment :- P.A. Mohammed J. What is mainly involved in this Writ Appeal is the correctness of an order passed by the Tahsildar, Nedumangad under S.10 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 (for short'the Act'). The allegation of the appellants was that the respondent had destroyed a tree belonging to the Government and therefore, he was liable for punishment as provided under S.10 of the Act. The respondent in unequivocal terms denied the allegation. However, Ext. P2 order was passed by the Tahsildar holding that the respondent had cut and removed unauthorised y a tree from the puramboke land. Though the respondent challenged this order before the different authorities but in vain. Ultimately he filed writ petition challenging the orders passed by the revenue authorities. The learned single judge by the judgment dated 18th February, 1992 allowed the Writ Petition and accordingly quashed Exts. P2, P3 and P4 orders. Hence the present appeal has been filed. 2. S.10 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 is as follows: "Penalty for destruction or appropriation of trees - Any person who destroys or appropriates any useful tree belonging to the Government shall be liable for damages not exceeding three times the value of the trees as adjudged by the Collector, and shall also be liable on conviction by a Magistrate to be punished with imprisonment for a term expending to six months or with fine not exceeding five hundred rupees, or with both". The nature of proceeding under S.10 is quasi criminal and therefore, there must be strict proof before any person is convicted under this section. In this case, no prosecution had been launched against the respondent. What the Tahsildar did was to recover the damages on the ground that the respondent had destroyed the tree belonging to the Government. The provision contained in S.10 of the Act shall be attracted only when it is clearly established that a person had destroyed a useful tree belonging to the Government. There is no witness to the cutting and removing the tree by the respondent. What is said in Ext. P2 is that they had made enquiries and came to know that the respondent had destroyed the tree. This is insufficient for fastening the criminal liability on the respondent. The order passed by the Tahsildar must disclose the evidence in support of the requirement that the respondent had destroyed the useful tree. What is said in Ext. P2 is that they had made enquiries and came to know that the respondent had destroyed the tree. This is insufficient for fastening the criminal liability on the respondent. The order passed by the Tahsildar must disclose the evidence in support of the requirement that the respondent had destroyed the useful tree. In the absence of any evidence being disclosed in Ext. P2, it is difficult for this court to say that the offence contemplated under S.10 has been established. When there is a fundamental infirmity it is unnecessary for us to examine the orders passed by the authorities in appeal or revision. We are of the view that the learned judge has correctly set aside Exts. P2, P3 and P4 and we affirm the said judgment. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.