Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
S. RAJENDRAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Muralee Krishna, J.)
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) Call for the records leading to Exts.P10, P13, P15 and P17 and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, order or direction quashing Exts P10, P13, P15 and P17.
(ia) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction directing the respondents to correct the survey No. in Exts P2 and P3 as ‘912’ instead of ‘843A’.”
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste. The 5th respondent assigned 8 cents of land in KDH Village in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960. When the petitioner attempted to effect mutation in the revenue records, it was found that the survey number was wrongly shown as 843A instead of the correct survey number of 912. As per judgment dated 20.02.2020 in W.P.(C)No.7296 of 2015, this Court directed the 5th respondent to consider the request of the petitioner to correct the survey number in the light of circular No.35735/A2/2015/Revenue dated 30.10.2017 issued by the 1st respondent. But as per Order No. B1-10716
The court emphasized that land assignments must adhere to statutory procedures, and unauthorized occupation does not confer legal rights.
The court ruled that the petitioner failed to establish a legal right over the property, and eviction must follow due process under the Land Conservancy Act.
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.
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 ....
The court upheld that construction permits are mandatory and necessitated an inquiry into the petitioner's property title under the KDH Act before addressing eviction disputes.
The court ruled that procedural fairness requires an opportunity for the Petitioner to contest against unjust limitations on land assignment rights.
The court upheld the eviction proceedings against the petitioner for encroachment on government land, affirming the proper application of the Land Conservancy Act and the denial of natural justice du....
The court ruled that the petitioners failed to prove their possession of land and that the authority to assign such land lies with the District Collector under the Kannan Devan Hills Act.
Unregistered documents cannot effectuate transfer of immovable property valued above Rs.100; proper documentation and verification of ownership are essential for land assignment.
A writ of mandamus requires a legal right and statutory duty, and cannot be issued contrary to law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
