The court held that the District Collector's order to remove encroachments without providing the petitioners an opportunity to establish their title was improper, and directed the District Collector to conduct a survey and provide the petitioners an opportunity to prove their title before initiating any proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act.

The 1st petitioner is the proprietor of M/s.Trien Green Lagoon Resorts. The 1st petitioner has purchased a total extent of 382.65 cents of land in various survey numbers in Arookutty Village files as evident from Exts.P1, P2 and P3 sale deeds. The total extent of property in the hands of the 1st petitioner is 207.99 cents of land in various survey numbers. Similarly, the 2nd petitioner is in possession of 17.24 ares of land in Old Survey Nos.183/1 and 183/2 of Arookutty Village. The petitioners claim that mutation in respect of the said property is already permitted. The Basic Tax receipt Register in respect of his predecessor is produced as Exts.P4 and P5. On 06.08.2013 the 1st petitioner made a request to the Hon’ble Minister for Revenue stating that, in case the Kayal puramboke is assigned to the petitioner, he is prepared to provide alternate land five times more than the extent that is being assigned to him. Though, initially, the Government by Ext.P7 order accepted the suggestion of the petitioner, later by Ext.P8, the same was cancelled.

2. By the matter stood as, two Writ Petitions were filed before this Court as W.P.(C) No.8079 of 2012 and W.P (C) No.11700 of 2015. In the litigation filed before this Court, the Government took a categorical stand that, the property covered at the 62.32 Ares of land in re Survey No.98/1 has already been taken back on 10.07.2009 and kept under the Government custody. Similarly, in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C).11700 of 2015 it was pointed out that, adjacent to the Kayal puramboke land there is 01.53.22 H of land in Sy.No. 98/16 in the possession of the 7th respondent, the 1st petitioner herein. It is further stated that 1.04 Ares of land was found to be in excess and allowed to be transferred to the 1st petitioner herein in the Resurvey Adalat. Based on these averments, the learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 25.09.2017, disposed of both the Writ Petitions ordering that the District Collector shall ensure that the land in question is protected from encroachment and further directing the District Collector to remove the encroachments by resorting the Provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act . In purported compliance of the above judgment, the District Collector by proceedings dated 15.05.2018 as issued Ext.P12 in which it is ordered that the unauthorized encroachments be surveyed and removed within 15 days. Based on the said direction, the petitioners allege that the Revenue Officials had inspected the property of the petitioners without measuring the property and installed survey stones.

3. A statement has been filed by the 4th respondent as directed by this Court by order dated 29.06.2018. The relevant portion of the statement is extracted as below:

“6. Then Head Surveyor, Taluk Surveyor and survey staff inspected the land and measured the above mentioned puramboke land with old survey records, pattayam and patta sketch. Then it is found that, after resurvey, 62.32 Ares of kayal puramboke land comprised in old sy.no.98/1 measured as 55.65.

Ares which is in BL5 comprised in Re.sy.No.308/1.

7. It is submitted that 14.75 Ares of kayal puramboke land comprised in old sy.no.98/1 included in petitioner's registered land and was in BL-5 and comprised in Re.Sy.No.98/16. 3 nos. pattayam was issued from this land. Direction was given to the petitioner to produce the pattayam and pattaya sketch to measure the land. The petitioner produced only two pattayam and pattaya sketch before the Tahsildar (LR) having an extent of 6.07 Ares (3.18 Ares + 2.89 Ares). The other pattyam, which was issued to an extent of 3.24 Ares, out of which only 2.43 Ares is in petitioner's possession, remaining 0.81 Ares is not in petitioner's possession. The petitioner failed to produce pattayam of the above mentioned property.

8. 55.65 Ares of kayal puramboke land comprised in old sy.no.98/1(BL-5, Re.Sy.No.308/1), (6.25 Ares of kayal puramboke land which is comprised in 98/1 (which was i