IMPORTANT POINTS:
If the land is required for public purposes, dispensing other statutory formalities, an Award shall be passed computing the compensation. There is no dispute in this case that the land belongs to the Government. The petitioners could only assert a possessory interest in the land. Therefore, they could only claim compensation on proving the nature of the possessory right over the land. Therefore, the Collector shall pass an award and refer the dispute under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [Act 30 of 2013] to determine the right, interest and also the quantum of compensation. It is for the civil court to decide the nature of right and interest based on which the petitioners are entitled for the compensation and also the quantum of compensation. The Award shall be passed after preparing the mahazar with the details of improvements and valuation of the land and all other factors required to determine just and fair compensation under the Act 30 of 2013.

In this Writ Petition, the petitioners question the legality of an order of eviction and consequential proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957.

2. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court by W.P.(C) Nos.9216/2011 and 24352/2011 challenging Form ‘C’ notices issued to them to remove encroachment as contemplated under Rule 11 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules, 1958 (for short, the “Rules”). This Court by judgment dated 16.6.2017, set aside Form ‘C’ notices issued against them noting that it was not preceded by a final order as contemplated under Rule 11 of the Rules and, directed the Tahsildar to pass a reasoned order after adverting to the objections. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Land Records passed the impugned order on 3.5.2018. Thereafter, Form ‘C’ notices were served on the petitioners on 25.12.2018 and the petitioners were evicted from the land.

3. The petitioners claim that they were in possession of the land through the predecessor-in-interest from the year 1930 onwards. The land was planted with Coffee. It also seems that Coffee plantation was assessed by the Government for Plantation Tax. The petitioners, however, admits that the land belongs to the Government in Jenmom. According to them, the predecessor-in-interest was put in possession of the land based on the then policy of the Government for bringing wasteland under the cultivation.

4. I have heard Shri B.Krishnan, who appeared for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General, Ranjith Thampan, who appeared for the State.

5. The petitioners challenge is mainly on three grounds - firstly, the Tahsildar (Land Records) has no jurisdiction to act as a ‘Collector’ under Section 15 of the Land Conservancy Act to pass the impugned order; second, the Tahsildar without adverting to the jurisdictional facts, invoked Land Conservancy Act and passed the impugned order and; the third, the Government, without determining jural relationship, cannot disturb the settled possession of the land through the land conservancy proceedings.

6. In the counter affidavit filed in the matter, the Government does not acknowledge any kind of jural relationship with the predecessor-in-interest or with the petitioners. However, it is stated that the revenue authorities in the Malabar area used to give temporary permission to occupy Government properties for cultivation purposes under the Grow Food Scheme during 1931-35. It is also stated that a portion of the land which was in occupation of the petitioners was also given for cultivation to one Padmrajan Counden and after the demise of Padmarajan Counden, the property was in occupation of the petitioners’ father, namely, Nagarajan Iyer.

7. By government notification published in Gazette dated 07.10.1958, the Taluk Tahsildar was empowered to act as a Collector under the Land Conservancy Act. Section 15 confers power on the State Government to delegate powers conferred upon the Collector on any authorized officer. The learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the ‘Tahsildar, Land Records’ is not the ‘Tahsildar’ referred to in the notification. The learned Additional Advocate General referred to a government order No.510/98 dated 14.10.1998. By this government order, the Government reorganised the revenue department. Consequent upon reorganisation, the post of Additional Tahsildar was created and subsequently, they were assigned with subjects to streamline the functions. By the said government order there are two Tahsildars for a Taluk; one for administration and the other for other subjects. Land Conservancy is a matter allotted to the Additional Tahsildars. The Government, thereafter, by government order dated 27.4.2017 redesignated the post of Additional Tahsildar as Tahsildar (Land Records). The point, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether the expression Additional Tahsildar would also include Taluk Tahsildar. The designation of Additional Tahsildar or Tahsildar (Land Records)