Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
R. Selvapackiam S/o Raj - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 24720 of 2023
Decided On : 19-05-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition seeking direction for assignment of land and protection against dispossession - Petitioners claimed eligibility based on government orders and prior occupation after a landslide - The court found that the land was vested in the Government under the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971, and the petitioners failed to prove their entitlement under the Act - The court emphasized that without statutory backing, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be exercised. (Paras 1-12)
(B) Assignment of Land - The court ruled that the assignment of lands vested in the Government is governed by the Kannan Devan Hills (Reservation and Assignment of Vested Lands) Rules, 1977, which do not honor existing possession for assignment. (Paras 6-10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, permanent residents of Anthoniyar Colony, sought assignment of land in Munnar Village after being displaced by a landslide in 2005. They claimed eligibility based on a government order and submitted representations for land assignment, which remained unattended.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioners' claims as the land was vested in the Government, and the petitioners did not meet the criteria for assignment under the applicable laws.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners had a valid claim for land assignment and whether the court could intervene without statutory backing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' claims lacked statutory support under the KDH Act, and the assignment process must adhere to the provisions of the Act and Rules.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Muralee Krishna, J.
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction against respondent nos. 2 and 3 to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P7 representation submitted by the petitioners after notice and hearing within a time frame.
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their house plots during the pendency of the proceedings.”
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioners were residing at Anthoniyar Colony wherein heavy landslide happened on 25.07.2005 and thereafter it was resolved by the Government to rehabilitate the families in Anthoniyar Colony in another suitable place in the village. Subsequently, in the year 2008 by virtue of Ext.P1 order dated 20.11.2008, the Government has earmarked house plots in survey No.912 of Munnar Village wherein the petitioners’ eligibility is declared in first schedule. Accordingly, the petitioners have house plots in survey No.912 of Munnar Village and the 1st petitioner constructed a house in the place allotted to him. The petitioners are permanent residents in the village and they have no other property. The petitioners submitted various applications and representations before the authorities for assignment of property in survey No.912 where house plots are earmarked for the settlers of Anthoniyar Colony. The last such representation was Ext.P7 dated 15.06.2023 submitted by the petitioners before the 2nd respondent District Collector. However, the applications for assignment submitted by the petitioners are still pending unattended by respondents 2 and 3. Some of the local revenue officials have nexus with the land-grabbing mafia and it is the tactic to obviate the eligible people for assignment of land from the picture so that there will be vacant land to encroach upon at the disposal of the land mafia. The matter being so, the 1st petitioner was served with Ext.P10 order dated 26.06.2023 issued by the 4th respondent Village Officer, Munnar, prohibiting him from proceeding with construction in the property. Thereafter the petitioners approached this Court with the above writ petition.
3. The 2nd respondent District Collector, Idukki 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 on 15. 06.2023 the petitioners and certain others submitted an application before this respondent raising certain concerns over the assignment of lands in ‘Anthoniyar Colony’ in Munnar village along with request for pattayam. The land claimed to be in the possession is comprised in Sy. No. 912 of Munnar Village. The said application is marked as Ext.P7 in the petition and it was received in this office and the same was forwarded to the third respondent on 30.06.2023 as per letter numbered DCIDK/2618/2018-C2 for report.
4. The petitioners claim to be legal heirs of settlers of ‘Anthoniyar Colony’ in Munnar. They have produced copies of Aadhar cards as proof of their claim. The petitioners rely on Exhibit P1 Government order to establish their eligibility for assignment of the land. They also rely on the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 and the Kannan Devan Hills (Reservation and Assignment of Vested Lands) Rules, 1977 to describe the eligibility for the assignment.
5. As per Section 3 of the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act 1971 (KDH Act in short), with effect from 21st day of January, 1971, the possession of all lands situated in the village was transferred to and vested in the Government free from all encumbrances, and the right, title and interest of the lessees and all other persons, including rights of mortgages and holders of encumbrances, in respect of such lands, was extinguished. Only plantations, buildings, playgrounds, burial grounds and land in possession
The court ruled that claims for land assignment must adhere to statutory provisions, and existing possession does not confer entitlement under the Kannan Devan Hills Act.
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 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.
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 ....
A writ of mandamus requires a legal right and statutory duty, and cannot be issued contrary to law.
The court emphasized that land assignments must adhere to statutory procedures, and unauthorized occupation does not confer legal rights.
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 prohibition against alienation of assigned land remains valid if the petitioner fails to meet the payment requirements as per statutory rules.
The 12-year restriction on alienation of assigned land applies from the date of patta issuance, not the original assignment date, due to non-payment of dues.
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
