Court has authority under constitutional provisions to grant extraordinary relief, necessitating the divestment of land vested with Government under circumstances fulfilling the principles of legality and justice.

JUDGMENT :

C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. The petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to the concerned among the respondents for issuance of necessary orders divesting the petitioner’s property, which has vested with the Government in terms of Section 85 (5), read with Section 86, of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short, the K.L.R. Act), in view of the fact that petitioner’s proposal, offering an alternate land, has been accepted and acted upon by the Government.

2. When the learned Senior Government Pleader points out a doubt as to whether vesting has taken place or not in terms of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, in which case only, the question of divesting arise; and also, in the context of the availability of statutory power, if any, for divesting a land, which has already been vested with the Government, this Court appointed Sri.Harikumar.G.Nair as Amicus Curiae.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner; the learned Government Pleader and the learned Amicus.

4. The attendant facts:-

The petitioner’s father was a declarant under Section 85 A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act , 1963 before the 2^nd respondent/Taluk Land Board in a ceiling proceeding. Pursuant to his death, the petitioner and his brother got impleaded and proceeded with the case. Orders were passed on 22/10/1977, determining the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered. The said order was revised on 22/12/1981 by the Taluk Land Board under (8) of the . Accordingly, the petitioner and his brother were held liable to surrender lands situated in survey nos. 616/2, 619/1 and 618 of Mampad Village (Nilambur Taluk), of which, the 5^th respondent is the Village Officer. On 17/4/2012, the petitioner’s brother, on behalf of the petitioner too, preferred a re-option statement to surrender another land, instead of the land ordered by virtue of the revised order dated 22/12/1981. Accordingly, 5.81575 acres of land situated in resurvey no.1 of Pullipadom Village of the same Taluk was offered. The revised option statement is produced at Ext.P1. The offer vide Ext.P1 was not acted upon, which persuaded the petitioner to file a Writ Petition before this Court as W.P(C)No.10905/2022, which culminated in Ext.P2 judgment. Pursuant to Ext.P2, the offer vide Ext.P1 was accepted, and the 4^th respondent/Village Officer took possession of that land surrendered as per Ext.P1 re-option. Ext.P3 communication evidence the same. Inasmuch as, an alternate land was surrendered vide Ext.P1, which was accepted and acted upon by the Government, it is the petitioner’s claim that the land which technically vests with the Government by virtue of the revised order dated 22/12/1981, to the extent substituted by Ext.P1, has to be divested, so as to bring back the ownership and possession to the petitioner and his brother. It is in the above factual backdrop that the necessity to examine the question of the property vesting with the Government, and the possibility of an Order directing de-vesting etc arose.

5. Learned Amicus would primarily submit that, for a correct understanding of the scope of Section 86 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, reference to Chapter III, which deals with ‘restriction on ownership and possession of land in excess of ceiling area and disposal of excess lands’, is required.

6. Learned Amicus first invited this Court’s attention to Section 82, which speaks about the ceiling area, depending upon the status of the declarant. Thereafter, Section 85 was referred to, and this Court has been taken in detail to the various provisions of . , it was pointed out, provides that, if a person owns or holds land in excess of the ceiling area as on the notified date, such excess land shall be surrendered, in the manner provided un