JUDGMENT : The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs; “(i) Declare that no permission from respondents 1 to 3 is necessary for the purpose of cutting loading and transporting of reed from the 350 acres of plantation by name Aarthala Estate. (ii) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order interdicting respondents 2 to 4 and their subordinates from interfering in any fashion with the cutting, loading and transportation of the reeds from the Aarthala Estate owned and possessed by the petitioners and covered by the description in Ext.P2 tax receipts. (iii) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents 2 to 4 pass orders on Ext.P1 representation without any further delay. (iv) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding respondents 3 and 4 to forthwith pay to the petitioners an amount of Rs.70,000/-, which is the loss suffered by the petitioners on account of the illegal interception of the reeds loaded in the lorry bearing registration No.KL-50-3059 on 17.08.2020. (v) Issue such other writs, directions or orders as are just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.” 2. Petitioners claim that they are owners in possession of Arthala Estate having an extent of 350 acres of land comprised in survey No. 134 in Block No.156 of Kerala Estate Village. It is stated that when the reed in this Estate which was auctioned, was being transported by the bidder the officials under the 2nd respondent intercepted the lorries and got the reed unloaded seizing the lorry on 17.08.2020. It is stated that the lorry loads of reed are lying exposed to all the weather conditions since then, though reed is not a forest produce. It is stated the 1st petitioner had submitted Ext.P1 petition before the Divisional Forest Officer as early as on 26.08.2020 requesting for instruction to his subordinate officers not to interfere with the cutting, removal and transportation of reed, etc. The petitioners have filed W.P.(C) No.18405/2020, seeking police protection for transportation of the reed. It is stated the 1st petitioner had submitted Ext.P1 petition before the Divisional Forest Officer as early as on 26.08.2020 requesting for instruction to his subordinate officers not to interfere with the cutting, removal and transportation of reed, etc. The petitioners have filed W.P.(C) No.18405/2020, seeking police protection for transportation of the reed. The DFO had filed a statement in that case producing a report Annexure R1(a) therein of the Land Revenue Commissioner stating that the land involved in the writ petition is part of the land of which lease had expired. This Court had as per Ext.P4 judgment dated 26.11.2020 directed the DFO to pass orders on Ext.P1 petition after obtaining necessary clarifications from the Land Revenue Commissioner - 1st respondent. 3. The 2nd respondent has not passed orders on the petition. The learned Special Government Pleader has filed a memo dated 01.03.2021 producing a letter No.L.R.K4- 33119/11(2) dated 01.02.2021 of the 1st respondent addressed to the DFO stating that the report dated 15.04.2013 submitted from that office before the Government (Annexure R1(a) referred to in Ext.P4 judgment) relating to cutting of trees from Kerala Estate Village C2 Division was in respect of the land covered by survey No.182/7, 186/2 and 187 of block 156. It is also stated that the land involved in Ext.P4 judgment in W.P. (C)No.18405/2020 is covered by survey No.134 in block No.156 and the details relating to the said property are not available in the office of the 1st respondent. It is further stated that the District Collector Malappuram, Secretary Land Board, and Special Tahsildar Land Resumption have been instructed to submit the report urgently to the DFO and on receipt of the same, report would be submitted. 4. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 12.03.2021, the additional respondents 5 and 6 were directed to furnish the report called for by the 1st respondent before this Court on or before 18.03.2021 without fail. So far, no report is made available before this Court and there is no response from them. The learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that the report is not made available to the DFO or to the Special Government Pleader. 5. So far, no report is made available before this Court and there is no response from them. The learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that the report is not made available to the DFO or to the Special Government Pleader. 5. As the report which was referred to in Ext.P4 judgment is admittedly with respect to another property as seen from 1st respondent's letter dated 01.02.2021 and since the additional respondents have not produced any report before this Court, I deem it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to pass orders without waiting any further. It is made clear that in case, it is ultimately found that this particular land is also involved in the report which was referred to in Annexure R1(a) report is a Government land, the additional respondents 5 to 7 shall be made responsible and appropriate action would be taken against them for realising loss, if any, caused to the Government on account of their inaction on the orders passed by this Court. 6. Therefore there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to pass orders on Ext.P1 application within a period of one week, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner through electronic media. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.