The main legal point established in the judgment is the un-assignability of canal puramboke land and the importance of seeking compensation through legal recourse when the Government occupies land without compensating the owner.

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Introduction:

1. A portion of his property acquired and compensation paid, the owner enjoys the remaining property. Later, his younger son gets the property. Almost 40 years after the acquisition and after his father’s death, the son claims that the Government, then, occupied more property than it had acquired and that the Government allowed his father to occupy its property to the extent his father had lost.

2. The son, as the successor, first sues for an injunction and loses it. Later, he petitions the Tahsildar to have that piece of government land in his occupation assigned but has his request turned down. Without assailing the decree in the civil suit or the Tahsildar’s rejection order, once again he approaches the revenue authorities. This time he succeeds. The Government decides to allot him the land. A third-party, a Society, questions the Government’s belated benevolence.

The Issue:

Can the Government, after its initial rejection, assign or “reconvey” a separate piece of land—particularly canal puramboke—to a person whose land the Government occupied without compensating him? Viewed alternatively, is the claim for compensation the only remedy available to the landowner whose land the Government occupied, especially, with his consent?

Facts:

(a) Father’s Title & Possession:

3. It all happened long back—as far back as in the 1950s. Then the Government proposed to construct an irrigation canal: Chalakudy-Idathukara Canal. So it acquired lands, among other places, in Parakkadavu Village, Aluva Taluk. A part of the land acquired in that village belonged to one Mr. Varkey, the Appellant’s father. The acquisition completed, Varkey received the compensation and continued to enjoy whatever property remained.

(b) Sons’ Succession:

4. In 1984 Varkey settled his property on Jose, his elder son. Later, in 1992, Jose exchanged the property with George, his younger brother, for another piece. George, the owner, first approached the revenue authorities with a grievance and, later, filed a civil suit in OS No. 698 of 1996 before the Munsiff court, Aluva. We will set out his grievance.

5. Initially, when the Government acquired some properties for constructing the canal, it slightly altered the canal course. As a result, the Government took an additional 10 cents of land from Varkey, George’s father. Instead of compensating Varkey, the Government allowed him to occupy 10 cents of its land, adjacent to Varkey’s land, near the canal. All this was said to be on an oral understanding between Varkey and the Government. Despite this understanding, the revenue officials continued to reflect in the revenue records the 10 cents of land as puramboke.

(c) Claim & Rejection:

6. In December 1996 George filed OS No. 698 of 1996 before the Munsiff’s court, Aluva, claiming that the officials trespassed upon the property, destroyed the boundaries, and cut away the trees. He sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against the Government and its officials. Ext.P4 is the plaint. Through Ext.P10, dt. 28/11/2003, the Munsiff court dismissed the suit.

7. In 2000, George applied to the Tahsildar to have the land allegedly in his possession assigned to him. He cited the same reasons as he did before the civil court. After considering George’s claim, the Tahsildar passed Ext.P5 order, dt. 10/08/2001, rejecting his claim for assignment.

(d) Revival of Fortune:

8. Undaunted by Tahsildar’s rejection, George, this time, petitioned the Hon’ble Revenue Minister, who called for a report from the officials to find out the truth of George’s claim. The Deputy Director (Survey) reported, supporting George’s version. So, when the Government was again considering George’s claim, Desiya Poura Samithi, a society supposedly championing the public cause, filed WPC No.40909 of 2003, questioning the Government’s proposal. This Court, through Ext.P11 judgment, directed the Government to hear the Society as well as George before its taking a decision. On 05/04/2