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 due to the petitioner's failure to appear.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

1. The petitioner in these writ petitions and Crl. M.C. is one and the same person. The issues to be decided in all three matters are interconnected. Hence, we heard all these matters together and are being disposed of by this common judgment/order.

W.P.(C)No.22222 of 2020

2. W.P.(C)No.22222 of 2020 is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

“a) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writs, directions or orders calling for the records leading up to Ext.P16 and quashing Exts P12 and P14 to P16;

b) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs directions or orders restraining the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the property covered by Exts.P1 and P2 without considering his claim in respect of the disputed property;

c) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, direction or orders directing the 5^th respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioner with specific reference to the report of the 4^th respondent dated 21.12.2015;

d) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, directions or orders restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of 75 cents of land in Sy.No.182 (Originally in Sy No.441) of the Manjumala Village and also doing cultivation in the said item of land by the petitioner”

3. Going by the averments in W.P.(C)No.22222 of 2020, the petitioner purchased 75 cents of property situated in survey No.144 of Manjumala Village covered in Ext.P1 patta dated 29.01.1979 issued in L.A. No. 363/78, from the Pattadar Sri. Mohammed Puthenpurakkal by virtue of Ext.P2 sale deed No.1220 of 1981 of SRO Peerumade dated 22.10.1981. Alleging that Ext.P1 patta issued in favour of the predecessor of the petitioner and also the pattas issued in favour of some other persons cover excess extent of land than assigned, the pattas were cancelled by the Special Tahsildar, Land Assignment, Peerumade, as per proceedings dated 28.06.2009. The petitioner states that after several rounds of litigations, the other occupants were successful in obtaining an order from the 2^nd respondent District Collector, Idukki in compliance with the direction of this Court directing the Tahsildar, Peerumade, to restore the cancelled pattas of the land already possessed by the persons like the petitioner, after incorporating exact areas of cancelled pattas in the assignable list and assign thandaper in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. Despite various representations made by the petitioner to the concerned authorities, the same benefits were not granted to the petitioner, though the land of the petitioner lies in the very same survey number and lying contiguous. Therefore, the petitioner along with others, filed W.P.(C)No.3401 of 2017 before this Court, and the same is pending consideration. While the matters stood thus, the 5^th respondent Tahsildar (LA), Peerumade, issued Ext.P12 show cause notice dated 22.09.2020 to the petitioner under Section 12 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957, stating that if the petitioner wishes to show cause against the said notice, he has to appear at 11. 00 a.m. on 30.09.2020 and submit his explanation. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P13 communication dated 30.09.2020 requesting one month’s time, since he has to obtain certain documents relating to the dispute, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and he has to approach this Court relating to the very same property. However, the 5^th respondent adjourned the matter to 05.10.2020 as per Ext.P14 proceedings dated 28.09.2020, directing the petitioner to appear before him at 11.00 a.m. Pending consideration of Ext.P13, the 5^th respondent issued Ext.P15 order dated 08.10.2020 wherein it was specifically stated that the petitioner did not appear in the hearing and failed to submit the necessary documents to prove his case and hence the petitioner was