Shaffique, J.

1. Appellants in W.A.No.1721/2009 are State of Kerala and its officers who were arrayed as respondents before the learned single Judge. First respondent herein was the writ petitioner.

2. Writ petition came to be filed seeking quashing of Ext.P1 dated 18/07/2007 issued by the District Collector, Idukki. Under Ext.P1, District Collector ordered taking over of 2.84 acres of land in Sy.Nos.84/1/1 and 84/1/2 of Pallivasal Village in Devikulam Taluk along with the constructions thereon by the Government. The relief sought in the writ petition was to restore possession of the aforesaid land to the writ petitioner.

3. Writ petitioner, a partnership firm, substantiated their contention based on title contending that land was assigned to their predecessor-in-interest under Cardamom Rules (Travancore) of 1935 (hereinafter referred as 1935 Rules') and a patta was issued under the said Rules. According to the writ petitioner, action of Government in taking over the said land invoking the said provisions was not sustainable as the said Rules were no longer in force.

4. According to respondent State, patta said to have been issued under 1935 Rules was never produced, therefore, title of the petitioner was under a cloud and according to them, there was no assignment under 1935 Rules. They also contended that adjudication cannot be made so far as disputed questions of fact regarding title under a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned single Judge opined that by applying the doctrine of desuetude, Cardamom Rules of 1935 have become a "dead letter" and justice demanded that those Rules should not be invoked to deprive the petitioner of properties which has been in their possession. Learned Judge further held that conditions at Ext.P19 cannot be made applicable to the alleged grant in favour of Sri.Pylee Varghese and according to learned single Judge the very fact that mortgage deed executed by Sri.Pylee Varghese in favour of Government which was again released would indicate that title of Sri.Pylee Varghese on this property was accepted by the Government. Learned Single Judge also opined that suit filed by writ petitioner has nothing to do with the writ petition as the suit is only for injunction. Ultimately, learned Single Judge opined that Ext.P1 and all the actions pursuant thereto are totally illegal and unsustainable, hence proceeded to quash Ext.P1. Further, respondents were directed to restore the land to the writ petitioner resumed as per Ext.P1. So far as damages for demolition of buildings and other actions of respondents therein, liberty was reserved for them to approach appropriate forum where they can adduce evidence to substantiate their claim and quantum.

6. The learned Single Judge opined that the person who passed Ext.P1 has misused his powers wantonly without being sure of his powers, that too, without hearing the petitioner and falsely stated that writ petitioner was not present for the hearing. Therefore, Rs.15,000/- was awarded as cost, to be recovered personally from the person who passed Ext.P1.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge, respondents have come up in W.A.No.1721/2009 and the Authority who passed Ext.P1, one Mr.Raju Narayana Swamy, the District Collector, Idukki, at the relevant time has come up in his personal capacity as appellant in W.A.No.1878/2009.

8. So far as the appeal filed by the State, they contend that the learned Judge erred in scrutinising the title of the petitioner on the basis of the assumption that he is deciding the title of the parties like a civil suit. Learned Judge was not entitled to decide the title of the parties. On the other hand, writ petitioner ought to have been held as a rank trespasser. Initially, Ext.P3 sale deed was relied upon contending that the land transferred under the said document was a cardamom plantation. Tax receipts were produced at Ext.P4. Ext.P5 was the plaint in the original suit.