Important points:
Unless perversity is writ large on the face of the decisions rendered by the lower authorities, it is not desirable for the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower authorities. If the findings of the authorities below are concurrent, if had been rendered by considering the evidence, such a decision can never be said to be not in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, J.

Challenging the judgment dated 25.09.2020 in W.P.(C) No.9400 of 2010, instant writ appeal is filed.

2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that the petitioner/appellant purchased 17.51 acres of land covered by 7 Land Assignment files from the original assignees of 1993 registering sale deeds in the office of the Sub Registrar upon payment of sale consideration. The landed properties and the title to the same were genuine and undisputed, as evidenced by mutation of the land in the name of the petitioner, indicated by Exhibit P1. The land in question was occupied by the original assignees prior to the assignment, as evidenced by the indication of coffee cultivation.

3. According to the appellant, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed Exhibit P2 order illegally, canceling the said pattas, alleging that the assigned land was CHR land, that the land was obtained fraudulently, misrepresenting fact, and the land was alienated to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged Exhibit P2 order by preferring Exhibit P3 appeal before the District Collector, which also was dismissed vide Exhibit P4 order. The petitioner challenged Exhibit P4 order by preferring Exhibit P5 Revision Petition before the Land Revenue Commissioner, which is also dismissed vide Exhibit P6 order. The Tahsildar issued Exhibit-P7 notice, threatening to dispossess the petitioner of his land, even without giving opportunity to challenge Exhibit P6 order.

4. The orders canceling the pattas and the order of confirmation of said cancellation of patta by the revisional authority are unsustainable, and vitiated. The finding of the revisional authority that the land which was assigned, was unoccupied land, is not correct, as indicated by the physical evidence available in the land even now. The cancellation of patta for alienating the land before the expiry of 3 years can be resorted to, only if the land assigned was unoccupied. The finding of the revisional authority is one which is not available in the original order. The revisional authority disagreed with the finding of the original authority that the land was CHR land. The revisional authority arbitrarily maintained the original order of cancellation of patta by searching out a new ground which is not permissible in the process of adjudication by quasi judicial authorities. The authorities have not found anything to arrive at the conclusion that patta was obtained fraudulently and by misrepresenting the fact. There is nothing on record to establish the said allegation. On the other hand, if the mahazar available in the assignment files is examined, it can be seen that the land was occupied one.

5. On the above averments, writ petition was filed by the appellant for the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ calling for the records of the case leading to Exhibit P2, P4 & P6 and quash the same.

(ii) Issue a Writ declaring that the entering into of fresh finding in Exhibit P6 Revisional Order inconsistent with the finding in Exhibit P2 original order is not permitted in the proceedings of quasi judicial functions of the authorities who adjudicate questions on the basis of the records on file and evidence adduced and that it is against the administrative system of the Government.

(iii) Issue a Writ declaring that the original order vide Exhibit P2 is not sustainable as the land in question is not CHR land as found by Revisional authority in Exhibit P6.

(iv) Issue a Writ commanding the respondents not to take over the land of the petitioner pursuant to the cancellation of the pattas mentioned about in Exhibit P2 original order.”

6. Writ court, by the impugned judgment dated 25.09.2020, dismissed the writ petition as hereunder:

“22. In the instant case, the appellate authority and the revisional authority found that the lands were unoccupied lands which