IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that land assignments must adhere to statutory procedures, and unauthorized occupation does not confer legal rights.

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 5^th 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 5^th 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 1^st respondent. But as per Order No. B1-10716/2018 dated 08.01.2021, the 5^th respondent rejected the request of the petitioner to correct the survey number. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal dated 26.02.2021 before the 4^th Respondent which was dismissed. Though the petitioner filed a Revision petition before the 2^nd respondent, the same was also dismissed. In the meanwhile, the 5^th respondent has issued an order of eviction of the petitioner from the property in question under the Land Conservancy Act. Hence the above writ petition.

3. The 2^nd respondent Commissioner of Land Revenue filed a counter affidavit opposing the averments in the writ petition. Paragraphs 3 to 12 of that counter affidavit read thus:

“3. It is submitted that the petitioner has encroached about 8 cents of land in survey number 912 of Kannan Devan Hills Village (presently Munnar Village) by constructing a house and letting it out for rent. The petitioner claims that assignment evidenced by Exhibits P2 and P3 has been issued to him in the year 2001 for the said land in his possession. The petitioner himself admits that land in his possession is in survey number 912 and the so-called assignment is in survey number 843-A of Munnar village. The petitioner filed Exhibit-P4 application before the 3^rd respondent District Collector for correction of survey number in the documents evidencing assignments. The application was rejected by the 3^rd respondent District collector by way of Exhibit-P6 order. The petitioner thereafter approached the 2nd respondent Commissioner of Land Revenue in an appeal against Exhibit- P6 order, which was also rejected by way of Exhibit-P7 order. Meanwhile the Government issued directions in Exhibit-P8 whereby certain guidelines were issued regarding correction of survey numbers in assignments. Taking advantage of Exhibit-P8 orders. petitioner again approached this Hon'ble court in WP(C)No.7296 of 2015 and this Hon'ble Court had directed 5th respondent Tahsildar to consider the request of the petitioner in the light of Exhibit-P8 guidelines. After considering the request of the petitioner in the light of Exhibit-P8 guidelines, the 5^th respondent Tahsildar rejected the request of the petitioner by way of Exhibit-P10 order.

4. It is submitted that the 5^th respondent Tahsildar, on finding that the possession of land is an illegal one in Government Puramboke land and since request of the petitioner to effect correction of survey number in assignment was rightly rejected, initiated proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 against the petitioner vide Exhibit-P11. The petitioner, in the meanwhile preferred an appeal before the 4^th respondent Sub collector, Devikulam and approached this Hon'ble court in WP(C) No.7424 of 2022. By way of Exhibit-P12 judgment, this Hon,ble court had