Thiruvananthapuram: The revenue department is trying to protect the accused involved in the Muttil tree cutting case. Their stance is based on the concern that if actions are taken under the Land Conservancy Act, the accused may encounter severe backlash. Additionally, the department is blamed to be withholding the legal advice to take action against tree-cutting activities, to help the accused.
The action of the revenue department in the Muttil tree cutting case, involving allegations against the CPI leadership, is questionable. There are complaints that the CPI-ruled revenue department is adopting a protective stance towards the accused, creating concerns about the fairness of the case. Adding to the complexity, the forest department’s authority is limited to imposing minor fines for tree-cutting, while a separate case is currently underway in the High Court concerning the forest department’s actions in seizing trees.
However, if the revenue department decides to take action under the Land Conservancy Act, the defendants could potentially face triple fines, amounting to approximately 25 crores in the Muttil tree cutting case. Furthermore, if the revenue department intensifies its efforts alongside the ongoing police investigation, the accused may encounter significant legal consequences. There is a suspicion that the tardiness displayed by the revenue department is an attempt to evade such outcomes.
The revenue department has been provided with legal advice to initiate action in the tree cutting case in Ernakulam district. However, despite the possibility of applying the same advice in the Muttil case, the revenue department seems to be deliberately delaying its implementation. Meanwhile, the defendants have taken the matter to court, seeking the cancellation of all proceedings related to the case, including the FIR.
The investigation team is scheduled to submit the charge sheet for the case before August. The outcome of the DNA test on the trees and the forensic report will carry significant weight in determining the fate of the accused. The actions taken by the revenue department will play a crucial role in shaping the direction of the case.
Allegations had surfaced regarding the slow pace of the Crime Branch investigation into the case. Right from the beginning, there were accusations of deliberate efforts to hinder the high-level investigation conducted by the Crime Branch. The situation escalated when, just before the charge sheet was to be submitted, the investigation officer was transferred. Furthermore, the suspended officers involved in the Muttil tree felling case were reinstated, causing a significant setback to the progress of the investigation. Despite the Forest Department having submitted its investigation report several years ago, there has been no tangible advancement in the Crime Branch’s inquiry.
Comments