The main legal point established is that for invoking summary proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, there must be a 'semblance of interest' or acknowledgment of possession by the Government. The court clarified the distinction between settled possession and adverse possession, emphasizing the need for recourse to the civil court in cases of settled possession.

JUDGMENT :

In this writ petition, the petitioner questions the validity of the proceedings initiated under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') to evict him from the land comprised in R.Sy.No.72 of Nadapuram Village in Vatakara Taluk. The extent of the land involved is 6.58 cents.

2. The proceedings were initiated on the premise that the land in question is part of a thodu puramboke which is vested with the local Panchayat. The Tahsildar (LR) initiated proceedings. The petitioner exhausted all remedy. In these proceedings, initiated for a judicial review, the petitioner seeks to challenge the proceedings on two grounds. One is referring to the settled possession of the land and the second is on the ground that the Tahsildar (LR) has no authority or power to initiate the proceedings in respect of the land vested with the local Panchayat.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. Point No.1: The petitioner refers to Ext.P2 partition deed. The petitioner states that the title of the land in question is traceable to a partition deed executed in the year 1958. The petitioner states that the land was allotted to his family. There was a dispute between the petitioner and the neighbouring owner. The petitioner's siblings filed a suit for injunction and recovery of possession (Ext.P3). That suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. In that suit, a reference was made in respect of the land in question. The petitioner refers to Ext.P6 sketch prepared by the Advocate Commissioner. It is to be noted that decree schedule is not produced before this Court. It appears that the defendants therein contended that the land in question was not part of the title deed of the petitioner. As seen from Ext.P4 judgment, the petitioner instituted a suit in respect of the land in survey No.71/5. Thereafter, based on a Commissioner's report, who prepared the report with the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor, amended the plaint correcting the survey number as 72. As seen from the judgment of this Court in the second appeal, the court entered into a finding that the land in question belonged to the plaintiffs, based on the lie and nature of the property and based on the boundary description in the title deed.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the finding by the civil court though may not bind the Government as the Government was not a party to the suit nevertheless it would establish that the petitioner and his predecessor in interest were in 'settled possession' of the land. Therefore, it is argued such a long possession cannot be disturbed through a summary proceedings initiated under the Act. It is also submitted that the petitioner having asserted title over the land, any dispute on land can only be resolved through the civil court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Banerjee Memorial Club v. Taluk Tahsildar [2016 (1) KLT 241]. In paragraph 21 of the aforesaid judgment, it was observed as follows:

21. It is settled principle of law that when a person is in continuous possession of a property for a considerable long time under an assertion of title without any challenge, the said possession has to be ascribed of a legal origin. In this context it is useful to refer to the judgment of the House of Lords in Harris and another v. Earl of Chersterfield and another((1911) AC 623) where the above principle was referred to and recognised...

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also brought my attention to the paragraph 24 of the aforesaid judgment which reads thus:

24. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao & Anr.((1982) 2 SCC 134). In the above case summary proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 were initiated. The Apex Court held that summary p