The judgment established that prior determinations regarding land ownership are binding if no appeals were made, emphasizing due process in the review of land status.

ORDER

Dated this the 18th day of October 2019 This Review Petition has been filed seeking review of judgment dated

19/09/2019 on the ground that the land in question is Government land and the direction to effect mutation in favour of the writ petitioner/ 1st respondent in the RP and to accept basic tax was not warranted in the facts of the case.

2. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Review Petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the land is recorded as Government Puramboke in the Basic Tax Register. It is further stated that a re-survey of the property in question was finalized and decided on 25/04/1999. It is stated that in the re-survey also, the property in question is shown as Government Puramboke land of the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe department. It is stated that no objection had been raised to the re-survey report. It is therefore contended that the direction to effect mutation and to accept Basic Tax is completely unsustainable. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would contend that this Court has considered the issue with regard to the ownership of the land and had by Ext.P9 judgment in an earlier round of litigation held that Ext.P2 order of the Board of Revenue had categorically found that the land in question was not Government land. On the said basis, the issue was directed to be considered by the Tahasildar. It was thereafter that Ext.P10 proceedings have been issued. Ext.P10 was under challenge in writ petition No. 5381 of 2018.

4. A counter affidavit had been placed on record in that writ petition. It was after considering the contentions raised in the counter affidavit as also in the light of the findings in Ext.P2, that the judgment under review had been rendered. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent would also contend that the grounds raised in the Review Petition and the documents produced were not raised or produced along with the counter affidavit in the writ petition and as such the same cannot be pressed into service in support of an application for review.

5. I have considered the contentions advanced. The judgment under review specifically takes note of the contentions of the parties. It was found that Ext.P2 order passed by the Board of Revenue as early as in 1970 had categorically held that the land in question was not Government land. The said finding was rendered in a proceedings issued under Land Conservancy Act . The said order was an appealable order. However, it appears that no appeal had been preferred against the same and the same was allowed to become final. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner/1st respondent had submitted that on the basis of Ext.P2, Sri. Ramankutty continued in possession of the property and was also paying tax. Thereafter, by Ext.P1 sale deed dated 22/08/1990, the property was purchased by the writ petitioner. It was in the above circumstances, that the writ petitioner had sought transfer of Registry in respect of the said property. By Ext.P9 judgment, this Court took note of Ext.P2 and the finding rendered therein that the property in question was not Government land. The Tahasildar was directed to consider the request of the writ petitioner for change of Registry on the basis of the said finding. However, in Ext.P10, the Tahasildar held that the transfer of title to Ramankutty was not established and therefore the writ petitioner could not claim any title to the property. This was the order under challenge.

6. Taking note of the contentions raised in the writ petition as also in the counter affidavit, and specifically taking note of Ext.P2 order by which the Board of Revenue had held that the land in question is not Government land, this Court had come to the conclusion that the writ petitioner was entitled to change of Registry in her name. The finding in Ext.P10 that the property is Government land was found to be unsustain