IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that only the District Collector has the authority to assign land under the Kannan Devan Hills Act, rendering any patta issued by an unauthorized officer invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

This writ appeal is filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by petitioner in W.P.(C)No.24614 of 2006, assailing the judgment dated 15.03.2013 in the writ petition as well as the order dated 06.03.2015 in R.P. No.546 of 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge.

2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash Ext.P13 order dated 27.07.2005 of the 3^rd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Devikulam, cancelling Ext.P3 patta dated 26.03.1999 issued to the appellant in respect of 52.23 Ares of land situated in survey No.20/1 of KDH Village and also Ext.P17 order dated 03.02.2006 of the 2^nd respondent District Collector, Idukki District dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against Ext.P13 proceedings. The appellant has also sought for a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the appellant’s title, possession and enjoyment of the properties covered by Ext.P3 pursuant to Exts.P13 and P17 orders. As per the impugned judgment dated 15.03.2013, the learned Single Judge found that the land in possession of the appellant had vested with the Government in terms of Section 3(1) of the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 (‘KDH Act’ in short), and when a special procedure is provided under Section 9 of the KDH Act for assignment of such lands, in the absence of such an assignment by virtue of orders passed by the Government or the District Collector, as the case may be, Ext.P3 patta has no effect, and the authorities were justified in cancelling the same. Though the appellant by producing some additional documents filed R.P. No.546 of 2013 claiming error apparent on the face of record in the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge dismissed the review petition holding that the additional documents produced by the appellant along with the review petition could show that only proposals were made for assignment of land in cutchery settlement. The land coming under KDH Act can be assigned only invoking the provisions under the said Act. Mere instruction to assign land under the provisions of the Land Assignment Act, will not be helpful without there being any statutory powers. Therefore, the learned Single Judge found that no sufficient ground was made out by the appellant to review the impugned judgment.

3. Going by the averments in the Writ Petition, the case of the appellant is as under:

The father of the appellant was an Advocate practicing at Devikulam, and he was granted patta in respect of 10 cents of land at KDH Village about 50 years ago. He was in residential occupation of that land by constructing a house, soon after the issuance of patta. Abutting this house property, he occupied 1 acre and 55 cents of Government land during the year 1950. Land conservancy proceedings were initiated against him by the revenue department as L.C. Case Nos.77 and 78 of 1968. The appellant’s father filed objections to the said proceedings. However, no further action was followed from the part of revenue authorities. He died in 1983. After the death of his father, the appellant continued in possession of the land and was issued with Ext.P3 patta on 26.03.1999. Thereafter, he started remitting basic tax also. The appellant gifted 66.6 cents of land out of the property covered in Ext.P3 patta to his brother Jolly Job as per Ext.P7 gift deed dated 29.12.2000. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Devikulam, initiated steps for cancelling Ext.P3 patta by issuing Ext.P8 notice dated 08.07.2003 to the appellant, followed by an enquiry. Though the appellant filed Ext.P9 objection dated 23.10.2003, no orders have been passed by the 3^rd respondent. Hence, the appellant approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.9246 of 2005 and as per Ext.P12 judgment dated 07.04.2005, this Court directed the 3^rd respondent to finalise the proceedings. Pursuant to the said directio