IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly, JJ.
Kunhali – Petitioner
Versus
The Tahsildar, Land Records, Vatakara and Ors. – Respondents
WA. No.1571 OF 2020
Decided On : 06-01-2021
The Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957- Section 3, Section 12-If a thodu, or the banks of the thodu, are encroached upon, it is the duty of the Courts to protect the same-The Government, as well as the Local Self Government Institutions, are trustees of the properties and the trust so reposed by the people shall be discharged by the State as well as other authorities with utmost care, caution, duty, obligation and circumspection-
Statement of facts:
Exhibit-P1 proceedings of the Tahsildar (Land Survey) dated 28.04.2018, issued under Section 12 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957, appellant/writ petitioner, who was in unlawful possession of 6.58 cents of land in R.S. No.72 of Nadapuram Village, was directed to vacate the said land, alleging that it is the property of Government, under Section 3 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957
Finding of the court:
The appellant is in possession of the Government land, has not chosen to seek for any declaration of his title, on the grounds of adverse possession. The above are only observations and will not prejudice the rights of the appellant to seek for any remedy
Result: Writ appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
S. Manikumar, J.
This intra court appeal is filed against the judgment passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1051 of 2020 dated 29.06.2020, by which, the writ petition was dismissed, by observing that there is no scope for interference with the proceedings impugned therein; that if the civil suit is pending, the petitioner is free to seek any relief against the property; and that the parties are bound by the orders to be passed by the civil court in that regard.
2. Facts leading to the filing of instant appeal are that by Exhibit-P1 proceedings of the Tahsildar (Land Survey) dated 28.04.2018, issued under Section 12 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957, appellant/writ petitioner, who was in unlawful possession of 6.58 cents of land in R.S. No.72 of Nadapuram Village, was directed to vacate the said land, alleging that it is the property of Government, under Section 3 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957. Relying on Exhibit-P2 partition deed of the year 1958, in which the property was stated to be allotted to his father, appellant denied the allegation that he is in unlawful possession of the said property. Apart from Exhibit-P2 deed, he has also relied on Exhibit-P3 judgment in O.S. No.87 of 1982 of the trial court accepting title, Exhibit-P4 judgment in A.S. No.8/1991 dated 18.09.1991 of the lower appellate court, Exhibit-P5 judgment in S.A. No.584/1992 dated 25.01.1993 of this Court, Exhibit-P6 Commissioner's plan in O.S. No.82/1987, Exhibit-P7 Commissioner's report dated 26.10.1983 in a suit identifying the land in question, Exhibit-P8 revenue resettlement register of the land, Exhibits-P9 to P12 land tax receipts dated 23.11.1987, 23.11.1987, 24.10.1966, 23.10.1979 and 26.11.1980, to show that his unlawful occupation of the land now asked to be vacated.
3. Appellant has further stated that the appeal filed against Exhibit-P1 proceedings of the Tahsildar (Land Survey) was dismissed by Exhibit-P13 order, by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode, respondent No.2, dated 26.11.2018. Though he has filed revision against Exhibit-P13 order, the same was also dismissed, as per Exhibit-P14 order dated 12.05.2019 by the District Collector, Kozhikode, respondent No.3. Against Exhibit-P14 order, appellant approached the Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.4, which resulted in Exhibit-P15 order dated 14.10.2019.
4. Being aggrieved by Exhibits-P1, P13 to P15 orders, the appellant has filed W.P.(C) No.1051 of 2020 for the following reliefs:
ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land on the basis of Exhibit-P1 order; and
iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order, or direction, directing the respondents to restore possession, in case of dispossession, based on Exhibit-P1 proceedings.
5. Before the writ court, Junior Superintendent, Vatakara Taluk Office, on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it was contended as follows:
(B) On receipt of the report received from the Village Officer, in Form No.A, the Tahsildar, Vatakara
All India Railway Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam Kumar
Animal and Environment Legal Defence Fund v. Union of India
Banerjee Memorial Club v. Taluk Tahsildar
Deviprasad v. District Collector
Ganesh Bank of Kurundwad Ltd. v. Union of India
Indian Airlines Ltd. v. Prabha D. Kanan
Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P.
Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. and Ors.
Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and Ors.
Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. Anilbhai Jayanitbhai Patel
Jitendra Kumar v. State of Haryana
Kerala State Beverages (M and M) Corporation Limited and Ors. v. P.P. Suresh and Ors.
Kuldeep Singh v. The Commissioner of Police
M. C. Mehta (Badkhal and Surajkund Lakes Matter) v. Union of India
National Institute of Medical Science University, Rajasthan and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Western Geco international Ltd.
R (Daly) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Brind
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India
Royal Medical Trust v. Union of India
Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Hazarilal
State of Maharashtra v. Prakash Prahland Patil
State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava
Susetha v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Tata Cellular v. Union of India
The General Manager (P) Punjab & Sind Bank v. Daya Singh
Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE
Union of India v. Rajasthan High Court
West Bengal Central School Service Commission v. Abdul Halim
Important points:In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 of the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960 (Act 30 of 1960), and in supersession of the rules for assignment of Government lands issued ....
The court held that the Corporation of Kozhikode's decision to sell a portion of the property acquired for public road to respondents 3 to 5 was not tainted with malafides and was in accordance with ....
Public authorities are bound by promises made under policies causing reliance in citizens, and arbitrary retraction of these commitments violates constitutional principles.
Judicial review under Article 226 is limited to ensuring procedural legality without adjudicating disputed facts, emphasizing that title issues belong in civil courts.
The State Government does not have the power to review its own orders unless such power is specifically conferred by statute. The State Government cannot exercise its power of review after a long del....
Limited scope of review applications and the need for compliance with government policies and regulations regarding encroachments on government land.
The duty of the government to protect and improve the natural environment, including water bodies, and the need to restore the land to its original position to serve as a water source for the people.
Supreme Court has further struck a note of caution that though Courts are generally not entitled to go behind declaration of Government to effect that acquisition is for "public purpose", an exercise....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.