Disputes regarding title and possession of land necessitate proper judicial scrutiny, especially where evictions under the Land Conservancy Act are challenged on grounds of legitimate claims. Government must prove any alleged encroachment.

JUDGMENT :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

1.Since common issues are involved in these writ petitions, they are heard and disposed of by a common judgment. WP(C) No.21897 of 2022 has been filed challenging Ext.P25 notice issued as per the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act for evicting the alleged encroachment made by the petitioner in respect of 1.37 ares of land in Sy.No.46/1 of Moothukunnam Village. Whereas WP(C) No.13004 of 2023 is filed challenging Ext.P34 order issued by the 1st respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner for issuance of an NOC.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petitions are as follows:-

Petitioner is the owner in possession of 2.41 ares of land situated in Sy.Nos.75/25-2-5, 46/1-19-4 and 46/1-59 of Moothukunnam Village obtained as per Ext.P1 sale deed executed in the year 2020. Petitioner has been paying tax in respect of the said property, as evident from Ext.P2, and Exts.P3 & P4 possession certificate and location sketch, respectively, were also issued in respect of the subject property. Petitioner submitted an application dated 15.11.2020 with all relevant documents for issuance of a No Objection Certificate to install and operate a diesel dispensation pump. The said application, produced as Ext.P5, was forwarded by the 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent for necessary enquiry and report, as per Ext.P6 letter. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent, after conducting a detailed enquiry, submitted Ext.P7 report stating that there is no puramboke in the said property. Unsatisfied with Ext.P7 report, the 1st respondent again directed the 3rd respondent to conduct a further detailed enquiry as per Ext.P8 communication, and pursuant to the same, 3rd respondent again conducted an enquiry and submitted Ext.P9 report again stating that there is no puramboke in the said property and the property is in the nature of a ‘purayidom’. The prior deeds of Ext.P1 sale deed are Ext.P10 sale deed bearing No. 1563/1994 of Paravoor SRO, and the prior deed of Ext.P10 is a pattayam bearing No. EF 53/1994 dated 21.01.1994.

3. It is submitted that out of 2.41 ares of land covered by Ext.P1, 1.33 ares of land is situated in Sy.No.75/25-5 of which Ext.P11 is the prior deed, a document executed by the managing trustee of Jan Muhammed Haji Essa Seit Trust, and since the said property was vested in the said Trust, the Kerala Wakf Board has granted permission to sell the property as per proceedings bearing No.B8/3339/RA dated 14.06.1982. It is further submitted that the prior deed of Ext.P11 is a registered will deed No.15/1119 ME of Ernakulam SRO. It is submitted that jetty license was also issued, as evident from Ext.P12 from the Port Conservator, and Ext.P13 is the site plan. Since there was an inordinate delay in considering Ext.P5 application for issuance of an NOC, petitioner approached this Court, filing WP(C) No.26379 of 2021, and during the pendency of the said writ petition, the 4th respondent conducted a survey without notice to the petitioner and submitted Ext.P14 report and sketch. On the basis of Ext.P14, the said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P15 judgment directing the disposal of Ext.P5 application. The 2nd respondent rejected Ext.P5 as per Ext.P16 on the ground that a portion of the property consists of ‘puramboke’. Petitioner would submit that, to the erstwhile owner of the property, a No Objection Certificate has already been issued by the 2nd respondent as Ext.P17 dated 14.06.2013, for which the 3rd respondent has issued Ext.P18 possession certificate for establishment of a diesel outlet. The prior deed of Ext.P10 which is the prior deed of Ext.P1 is Ext.P19 patta. The tandaper account of the