Judgment : 1. Ext.P2 order passed by the fifth respondent under Section 10 of the Land Conservancy Act, fixing damages for the trees cut down by the petitioner, Ext.P3 order passed by the fourth respondent in appeal declining interference and Ext.P4 order affirming the same by the second respondent in revision are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Petitioner's son, who is no more, had purchased 31.500 cents of land in Sy.No.568/6 of Trissilery Village as per sale deed bearing No.1225/1986 of SRO, Mananthavady, vide Ext.P1. The said property along with a larger extent was in fact assigned by the Government, in the name of Ayarkudy Erumoolan of Thirunelli way back in 1966, as per Patta No. DK 1020/64 dated 24.12.2006. As per the said Patta, no tree was shown as in existence on the date of assignment . 3. Quite after a long time from the date of purchase of the property covered by Ext.P1, the petitioner's wife submitted an application before the fifth respondent for permission to cut down some teak trees standing in the property, for widening of the road lying in front, as requested by the Secretary of the concerned Grama Panchayath. Admittedly, no order was passed thereon. Subsequently, the said trees were cut down by the petitioner, upon which a report was forwarded by the Village Officer to the fifth respondent, which led to proceedings taken by the fifth respondent under Land Conservancy Act for imposition of damage and penalty. This made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.21501/2008, which was disposed of, as per Ext.P7 judgment dated 28.7.2008 directing the fifth respondent herein to finalise the proceedings within the time as specified. 4. Pursuant to the above verdict, the fifth respondent, as per Ext.P2, fixed the value of 18 teak trees cut down by the petitioner as Rs. 2,32,675/-as assessed by the Divisional Forest Officer and the petitioner was directed to satisfy 'three times' of the said value i.e. Rs.6,98,025/- along with Rs. 500/-towards fine under Section 10 of the Act. The petitioner challenged the same by way of appeal preferred before the fourth respondent, who declined interference and the appeal was dismissed as per Ext.P3 order dated 7.1.2010. 500/-towards fine under Section 10 of the Act. The petitioner challenged the same by way of appeal preferred before the fourth respondent, who declined interference and the appeal was dismissed as per Ext.P3 order dated 7.1.2010. The petitioner took up the matter further , before the second respondent, by way of revision under Section 16 of the Act and after considering the same, the revisional authority also declined interference, vide Ext.P4 order dated 31.12.2010. 5. In view of the turn of events, the petitioner approached the Kerala Lok Ayukta by filing a complaint ( Complaint No. 473/2011), which came to be dismissed as per Ext.P5 order dated 30.11.2011, observing that no mal administration or intentional malafide action on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 therein was made out. On dismissal of the complaint, the fifth respondent issued Ext.P6 notice dated 12.7.2012 demanding the amount covered by Ext.P2, which made the petitioner to challenge Ext.P2, P3 and P4 along with Exts.P5 and P6 proceedings. 6. The fifth respondent has filed a counter affidavit seeking to sustain the impugned proceedings, with reference to the relevant provisions of law and the factual position involved. 7. Many a ground has been raised in the writ petition pointing out that the trees cut down by the petitioner actually do not belong to the Government and further that the same is still lying in the property and yet to be removed. It is also pointed out that the quantum of damages imposed upon the petitioner is exorbitant and without any regard to the actual facts and figures. 8. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit that, by virtue of the conditions imposed in the Patta, not only the trees, which are in existence on the date of assignment, but those which come into existence subsequently are also covered and the assignee as well as the subsequent transferee i.e. the petitioner are bound to take care of the same. It is asserted that, no permission was obtained to cut and remove the trees and that the petitioner had conceded that the trees came to be cut down due to ignorance as to the provisions of law. 9. It is asserted that, no permission was obtained to cut and remove the trees and that the petitioner had conceded that the trees came to be cut down due to ignorance as to the provisions of law. 9. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the factual position has already been considered at three different levels by the fifth respondent-the original authority; the fourth respondent-the appellate authority and also by the second respondent, in exercise of the revisional power. This being the position, this Court does not find it as a fit case to call for any further adjudication of facts . 10. The remaining question to be considered is with regard to the quantum of damages imposed. True, Section 10 of the Act provides for imposition of damages to an extent of 'three times' of the value of the trees cut down and sought to be removed/appropriated. But whether 'three times' of the value of trees should be imposed as damages in all cases, is a matter to be considered on merits of each case. It has been admitted by the respondents 5, 4 and 2, as borne by the orders passed by them, that the wife of the petitioner had filed an application for permission to cut and remove the trees for widening of the road on the request of the Local Authority/Panchayath. There is also an observation that, no document, however was produced by the petitioner in this regard necessitating the cutting and removing of trees for widening of the road. Even though the petitioner could not produce any such document, the fact remains that the wife of the petitioner had filed an application for permission to cut down the trees, which reflects the 'law abiding nature' of the person. The said application was preferred as early as on 4.2.2008, as referred to in Ext.P2 order passed by the second respondent. True, the trees came to be cut down before obtaining sanction. But it cannot be said that, the trees were sought to be cut down in a fraudulent manner or without letting it brought to the notice of the authorities concerned. It also remains a fact that, the logs are still remaining in the property of the petitioner and they have not been removed. But it cannot be said that, the trees were sought to be cut down in a fraudulent manner or without letting it brought to the notice of the authorities concerned. It also remains a fact that, the logs are still remaining in the property of the petitioner and they have not been removed. There is no case for the fifth respondent that the application preferred by the petitioner's wife was considered, rejected and was communicated to the petitioner. As it stands so, whether the petitioner should be mulcted with the 'maximum penalty' under such circumstance, was of course a matter to have been looked into by the concerned respondents. None of the respondents (on the original side, appellate side and on the revisional side) has considered this vital aspect, but for proceeding in a mechanical manner to impose the maximum penalty, seeking to realise 'three times' the value of trees cut down. This Court finds that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the second respondent. 11. Various other aspects are also involved, though not specifically highlighted or argued from the part of the petitioner. Section 10 of the 'Act' is a comprehensive one, providing to impose damages for the trees cut and removed, also stipulating penalty for the offence. The penalty part stipulates, either imprisonment or fine to the extent as specified on conviction by the Magistrate . The power to impose penalty, being clearly vested with the Magistrate, it cannot be invoked before ordering conviction. The power of conviction so as to impose punishment by way of 'imprisonment or fine' does not stand conferred upon the Revenue Authorities. Since there is no challenge in this regard, this Court does not propose to deal with the same in the instant case. 12. Similarly, the revisional power as provided under Section 16 in the case of an appellate order passed by the RDO/Sub Divisional Magistrate stands clearly vested with the District Collector and not upon the Commissioner for Land Revenue. The scope / mandate of Section 16(2) of the Act has been clearly considered and explained by this Court as per decision reported in 1977 KLT Case No. 77 (O.P.No.2461/1977). The scope / mandate of Section 16(2) of the Act has been clearly considered and explained by this Court as per decision reported in 1977 KLT Case No. 77 (O.P.No.2461/1977). If the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 16 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act (styled as an appeal petition dated 29.01.2010) was not maintainable before the second respondent, it ought to have been noted as 'defective' or should have been forwarded to the competent authority for further steps. However, since no case has been moulded by the petitioner in this regard, this Court does not find it necessary to deal with the said issue as well, in the present case. In the light of the observations made hereinbefore, Ext.P4 order passed by the second respondent is set aside and the second respondent/competent authority is directed to reconsider the fixation of the 'quantum of damages' to be imposed upon the petitioner. The proceedings as above shall be finalised, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Steps for recovery shall be kept in abeyance till such time. Writ petition is disposed of.