JUDGMENT : (S. MANU, J.) The main relief sought in the writ petition is to quash Ext. P9 proceedings of the 2 nd respondent dated 25.10.2014. 2. Allegation against the petitioner is that, he had illegally cut 18 teak trees reserved to Government without permission, from the land assigned under the Kerala Land Assignment Act. The land was originally assigned to one Eramallan Kutty as per patta dated 1/1/1970. The said land was purchased by the petitioners son as per document No.1225/1986. 3. The teak tress cut by the petitioner were seized by the Village Officer. Seized timber was handed over to the petitioner on kaycheet. Thereafter, the 4 th respondent initiated action under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. 4. Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.21501 of 2008 aggrieved by the action taken by the Village Officer. By judgment dated 28.07.2008, this Court directed to complete the proceedings within six weeks. Pursuant to the said direction from this Court, the 4 th respondent fixed the damages at Rs.6,98,025/- under Section 10 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. The value of timber was assessed at Rs.2,32,675/- and the damages as per Section 10 was fixed at three times the value of the timber as adjudged by the Collector. Fine of Rs.500/- was also imposed. 5. Petitioner invoked appellate and revisional remedies against the order of the 4 th respondent. However, the Appeal and Revision Petition did not yield any results. Petitioner hence approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.29287 of 2012. This Court disposed the said writ petition by Ext. P8 judgment dated 12.07.2013. This Court observed that the wife of the petitioner had filed an application for permission to cut the trees but the trees were cut before sanction was obtained. Further it was observed that, the trees were not sought to be cut down in a fraudulent manner or without letting it brought to the notice of the authorities concerned. It was also noticed by this Court that the logs were remaining in the property of the petitioner and they were not removed. This Court observed that fixing of maximum permissible damages under Section 10 was not mandatory and the matter required to be reconsidered. This Court also found that the power to impose fine was available only to the Magistrate and therefore imposition of fine of Rs.500/- by the Revenue Authorities was illegal. This Court observed that fixing of maximum permissible damages under Section 10 was not mandatory and the matter required to be reconsidered. This Court also found that the power to impose fine was available only to the Magistrate and therefore imposition of fine of Rs.500/- by the Revenue Authorities was illegal. This Court directed the competent authority to reconsider the quantum of damages. Ext. P9 order was passed in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Ext. P8 judgment. 6. Perusal of Ext. P9 shows that the 2 nd respondent considered all relevant aspects. The 2 nd respondent has noticed that though an application for permission to cut down the trees was submitted, trees were cut down before any permission was obtained. It was also observed that since the timber was seized, no loss was caused to the Government. The 2 nd respondent also took note of the financial difficulties and advanced age of the petitioner. Finally, the damages was fixed at Rs.1,16,338/- being 50% of the value of the timber. On request made by the petitioner, the 2 nd respondent granted installment facility also. The amount was directed to be remitted in three monthly installments. 7. Dissatisfied with Ext. P9, this writ petition was filed. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, there was in fact no reason to proceed against the petitioner under the Land Conservancy Act. She submitted that the petitioner was under compulsion to cut and remove the trees as the property was required for construction of a road by the Panchayath. Further, the learned Counsel contended that as observed by this Court in Ext. P8 judgment, there was no fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner and the timber was not removed or sold. The learned Counsel also contented that in Ext. P9, the 2 nd respondent has mentioned the liability as ‘pizha’ (fine). According to the learned Counsel, the Revenue Authorities are not competent to impose fine as found by this Court in Ext. P8 judgment and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Further, the learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner is aged and ailing. Petitioner has no income and if the remaining account is directed to be remitted, the petitioner will be in great difficulty. P8 judgment and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Further, the learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner is aged and ailing. Petitioner has no income and if the remaining account is directed to be remitted, the petitioner will be in great difficulty. She also pointed out that the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.38,780/- pursuant to Ext. P9 on 14.11.2014. She therefore prayed that Ext.P9 be set aside. 8. The learned Government Pleader opposed the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Government Pleader contended that Ext. P9 order was passed by the 2 nd respondent after proper application of mind to all relevant facts and aspects. She submitted that leniency has been shown in the matter of fixing the damages by limiting it to 50% of the value of the timber. Learned Government Pleader contended that the petitioner was not fair as being projected and in the initial round of litigation, which culminated in Ext. P3 judgment, the case projected by the petitioner was that trees cut were soft wood though teak trees were cut and removed. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that, no evidence has been produced to show that the trees were cut down without obtaining permission, as demanded by the Panchayath. The learned Government Pleader concluded her submissions by contending that no interference is warranted in the matter and therefore the writ petition be dismissed and the petitioner may be directed to remit the balance amount without any delay. 9. On an overall consideration of relevant facts and circumstances I find that there is no scope to interfere with the findings and conclusions of Ext. P9. Even going by the case of the petitioner trees were cut down without obtaining permission. In fact, those factual contentions have been considered in Ext. P8 judgment and the only direction in Ext. P8 was to reconsider the quantum of damages fixed initially. Therefore, in the light of the findings in Ext. P8 judgment, it is not open to consider the contentions on factual aspects as well as the sustainability of proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act. Though the work ‘pizha’ is used in Ext. P9, a comprehensive reading of the order would show that the 2 nd respondent has fixed the damages. Therefore, in the light of the findings in Ext. P8 judgment, it is not open to consider the contentions on factual aspects as well as the sustainability of proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act. Though the work ‘pizha’ is used in Ext. P9, a comprehensive reading of the order would show that the 2 nd respondent has fixed the damages. Pursuant to the remand by this Court, the 2 nd respondent reconsidered the issue and limited the damages to 50% of the value of timber. Installment facility was also provided. Petitioner has in fact conceded to the order by paying the first installment. The writ petition was filed raising challenge against Ext. P9 only after partly complying with the direction in it. In these circumstances, I don’t find any scope to interfere with the conclusions and findings in Ext. P9. Therefore, the challenge against Ext. P9 is repelled. 10. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner fervently pleaded that the petitioner may be granted some time to remit the balance amount. Taking note of the advanced age of the petitioner and submission of the learned Counsel that he has no means of income, I deem it appropriate on equitable considerations to grant installment arrangement to the petitioner to remit the balance amount. Therefore, the petitioner shall be permitted to remit the balance amount in eight equal monthly installments commencing from June 2025. The installments shall be paid before 10 th day of every calendar month. In case of failure to make payment as above, the respondents shall be entitled to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above.