IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
Thevan Thankachan [Expired], S/o. Thevan and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Secretary, Revenue Department and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 12982 Of 2022 & WP(C) No. 41348 Of 2023
Decided On : 03-03-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petitions filed seeking reliefs regarding land assignment and possession - Petitioners, members of scheduled tribes, evicted from Mathikettan settlement, assigned land in Chinnakanal but moved to Venkayappara settlement due to wildlife threats - Applications for land assignment rejected by authorities citing prior assignments and non-assignable land status. (Paras 1-9)
(B) Land Assignment Rules - The petitioners cannot claim rights over land not designated for assignment under the Kerala Land Assignment Act, despite previous assignments. (Paras 7-9)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners were originally assigned land in Chinnakanal village but moved to Venkayappara due to wildlife threats, seeking reassignment of land they occupied.
Findings of Court:
The petitioners were not entitled to relief as they were considered trespassers on the land claimed.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to land assignment despite prior assignments and the nature of the land claimed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that prior assignments and the nature of the land as non-assignable precluded the petitioners from claiming rights over the land in question.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners assigned land in chinnakanal (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. petitioners' counsel argues for assignment (Para 7) |
| 3. government's stance on prior assignments (Para 8) |
| 4. court's view on petitioners' claims (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
Muralee Krishna, J.
These writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners in the respective writ petitions seeking various reliefs pertaining to the properties occupied by them at Venkayappara Tribal Settlement in Anaviratty Village of Idukki District. In W.P.(C)No.12982 of 2022 the petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P8 notice dated 10.02.2022 issued by the Tribal Development Officer, Adimaly, directing the deceased 1st petitioner therein to occupy the 1 Acre of property allotted to him in Chinnakanal Village and Ext.P9 letter dated 25.02.2022 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government to the 1st petitioner informing him that the Government have no authority to consider the revision filed by him under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 and also seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent State of Kerala to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 revision filed by the petitioners challenging Ext.P6 order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the 4th respondent Sub Collector, Devikulam dismissing the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioners against the decision of the Tahsildar, Devikulam, rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for assignment of the land in their occupation. In W.P.(C)No.41348 of 2023 the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents therein to assign 2.5 acres of land each to the petitioners, which they claim as in their possession at Venkayappara Tribal Settlement.
2. The petitioners 1 to 4 in W.P.(C) No.12982 of 2022 as well as the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.41348 of 2023 are members of scheduled tribe community and the 5th petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12982 of 2022 is a member of scheduled caste community. All the petitioners were originally residing at Mathikettan tribal settlement in Idukki District. According to the petitioners, during the year 2002, they were evicted from Mathikettan settlement by giving some assurances for their rehabilitation. They were assured that they would be assigned with 4 Acres each at different places in accordance with the agreement entered into between the Tribal Union and the Government. In terms of that agreement, they were granted patta for one Acre of land each in Chinnakanal village. The 5th petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12982 of 2022, not being a member of scheduled tribe, was not given the patta. However, she and her family also moved with the remaining petitioners to Chinnakanal village. The petitioners could not develop their lands allotted at Chinnakanal due to elephant attack. Therefore, the District Collector, Idukki, permitted them to reside in the land earmarked for tribals at Venkayappara tribal settlement situated in Anaviratty village. They developed the land occupied by them at Anaviratty village, by cultivating bamboo, cardamom, coffee, pepper, etc. Even though the petitioners submitted applications before the Additional Tahsildar Devikulam for issuance of patta for the land in their respective possession in Venkayappara tribal settlement at Anaviratty village, no action has been taken on those applications. Hence they were constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.2026 of 2014, seeking a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to assign 2.5 Acres each to the petitioners after taking back the land allotted to them at Chinnakanal village. During the pendency of that writ petition, one Vincy Cherian and others approached this Court claiming possessory right over 50 acres of Government land by filing W.P.(C) No.20292 of 2014. By the common judgment dated 17.12.2015, this Court disposed of the writ petitions holding that the claim of assignment of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.202
The court ruled that petitioners cannot claim land assignment rights over properties not designated for assignment under the Kerala Land Assignment Act, despite previous assignments.
The court ruled that petitioners cannot claim land assignment rights over properties not designated for assignment under the Kerala Land Assignment Act, despite previous assignments.
Land in tribal settlement areas cannot be assigned under the Land Assignment Act, and agreements lacking proper title are invalid.
A writ of mandamus requires a legal right and statutory duty, and cannot be issued contrary to law.
When there are two competing claims, one rooted in public interest and another relates to the protection of the rights of the individual, the cause of the public interest must be considered as overwh....
The court ruled that eviction of Scheduled Tribe individuals from their homes in scheduled areas, based on illegal proceedings, violates the Land Transfer Regulation.
The court ruled that procedural fairness requires an opportunity for the Petitioner to contest against unjust limitations on land assignment rights.
Under the Kannan Devan Hills Act, mere inclusion in an eligibility list does not confer the right to land assignment without adequate proof of claims, and procedural correctness in rejection must be ....
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.