The court affirmed that submission of valid documentation is critical in claims involving land registry and patta eligibility.

O R D E R

Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2024 A.Muhamed Mustaque, Acg.C. J.

This review petition was filed by the writ petitioners.

This Court had dismissed the challenge made by the petitioners in the writ petition. In the writ petition, the challenge was against Ext.P10. Ext.P10 is the proceedings of the District Collector, Idukki, cancelling transfer of registry. It is observed in the impugned proceeding that the transfer of registry was effected based on the bogus patta produced by the petitioners. It is to be noted that petitioners did not produce any assignment order. The petitioners claimed that patta was issued in the year 1979. The first petitioner at that time was only 19 years old. As per the patta eligibility condition, if he was not an encroacher prior to 1971, he cannot make any preferential claim. The first petitioner had not established any prima facie case before this Court as to how he was eligible to obtain patta. This Court had already entered a finding endorsing the view of the District Collector as to the genuineness of the patta. This Court need not reiterate it again.

2. The review petitioner further argued that he was not given the report as referred in Ext.P10. It is to be noted, the proceedings were initiated based on a complaint made by one Sebastian, who has been assigned a portion of the land in the same survey number under Land Assignment Rules . A detailed objection has been set out by the review petitioner as evident from Ext.P4. He has never raised a contention that he was denied an opportunity to refer the report. It is to be noted, District Collector heard the review petitioner and after verifying the records, came to a conclusion that Patta claimed by the petitioner was bogus. It is further noted that files relating to transfer of registry were also manipulated and the officer concerned was suspended from service and disciplinary actions were taken against him. Even before this court, the review petitioner miserably failed to establish any prima facie case. The review petitioner had no answer with regard to assignment order, which ought to have been preceded the patta.

All the above facts clearly establish that bogus patta was placed before the revenue officials to obtain transfer of registry. The review petitioners’ argument that there are no proceedings to cancel the patta is unsustainable as the very case of the revenue authorities itself is that the patta claimed by the review petitioners is bogus. The finding of the facts is already appreciated by this Court in the judgment under review. There is no scope for review. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed.