Shaffique, J.

1. An order dated 23/06/2007 issued by the Government cancelling the pattayam issued in favour of 9 assignees and thereby extinguishing the rights of the present holders over the said lands are challenged in these writ petitions and hence decided together. For convenience the parties and documents are referred to as shown in W.P.C.No.20075 of 2007, unless otherwise stated. Ext.P37 is the impugned order. Apart from cancelling the pattas, it is further declared that the constructions in the said lands are illegal and unauthorised and holders were granted time to remove the construction and the materials from the site.

2. The facts involved in W.P.C.No.20075 of 2007 would disclose that the 1st petitioner claimed ownership and possession in respect of 12.83 acres of land in R.S.Nos.164/2, 166/2 and 167/3 (Old Survey No.435/Pt) of Anaviratty village. According to the petitioners, the said properties were assigned by the Government in favour of six persons by exercising the power under the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'KLA Act') and the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'KLA Rules) and pattas were issued in their names. The assignees under the pattas subsequently conveyed their interest in the property in favour of Smt.Agnus and Fr.Jose Kandathil as per separate sale deeds. Necessary mutation entries were also effected in regard to the right and ownership of the land in the basic tax register (for short 'BTR'). Fr.Jose Kandathil, who obtained title to certain items of property, conveyed his right over portion of the property to his brothers and Gigi @ Thomas. According to the 1st petitioner, he purchased the property from Gigi @ Thomas as per document No.1402/2000 produced as Ext.P17. The 1st petitioner also purchased certain item of property from Smt.Agnus as per sale deed document No.1408/2000 produced as Ext.P18.

3. In the meantime, one Xavier Xavier and another raised certain disputes alleging that the pattas were bogus. O.P.No.30376 of 1999 came to be filed before this Court, and as per directions in the judgment dated 28/08/2000, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Devikulam conducted an enquiry and found that the said allegations were baseless. Ext.P21 is the said order dated 19/02/2001. Sri.Xavier Xavier challenged the said order by preferring a revision petition before the Land Revenue Commissioner. The same came to be dismissed as per Ext.P22 order dated 17/11/2001. Sri.Xavier Xavier again challenged Exts.P21 and P22 orders by filing O.P.No.15924 of 2002 before this Court. As per judgment dated 03/10/2006, the said petition was dismissed. In the meantime, the survey particulars were verified in terms of the order passed by the RDO as Ext.P21 and it was found that there are certain discrepancies in the re-survey numbers which were directed to be corrected. Ext.P24 is the said order dated 08/02/2005. Pursuant to the said order, rectification deeds were also prepared and registered to correct the survey number particulars.

4. Petitioners made substantial improvements in the property and they were given permission to develop tourist facilities in the property, but the property was used only for cultivation.

5. The petitioners sold portion of the said properties to Abad Motels & Resorts (P) Ltd., the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20266/2007 and they were developing a tourism project in the said property. They were served with a stop memo by the revenue authorities which came to be challenged in W.P.C.Nos.15249 of 2007 and 14847 of 2007. The said writ petitions were disposed by this Court on 28/5/2007 taking on record the submission made by the learned Advocate General that orders will be passed pursuant to the stop memo within ten days after considering the objection of the parties and until such orders are passed, no steps will be taken for demolishing the building already constructed in the property.

6. The petitioners were served with noti