IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

FRIDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 6308 OF 2013 PETITIONER:

SHAJI@ SHAJI CHERIYAN AGED 40 YEARS S/O LATE CHERIYAN, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KARUMATHARA P.O, VAZHANI VIA, THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADVS.

SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS SRI. AGI SHOBY SMT.M.M.LAIJU NISSA RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT, LAND AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTRATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680003

3 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND REFORMS)& APPELLATE AUTHORITY AYYANTHOLE P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680003

4 SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LAND REFORMS)

OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LR), CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680020

5 VILLAGE OFFICER KARUMATHARA VILLAGE, KARUMATHARA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680020

6 LAND TRIBUNAL OFFICE OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR 680020 BY ADV.SMT.VINITHA.B(SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER)

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the son of one late Cheriyan who got an extent of

13 cents of land as per Ext.P1 pattayam No.1/85 issued on 10.04.1985 in the suo motu proceedings of the Land Tribunal, Wadakkancherry. The property in question is comprised in Sy. No.92/1 (old survey) which is presently in Re.Sy.No.111/2 of Karumathara Village. A residential house was constructed by the petitioner’s late father after the purchase of the property in the year 1967. After the death of the petitioner’s father, petitioner, his wife and children are residing in the said residential building. During the year 2007, the fifth respondent along with the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, attempted to evict the petitioner and his family members alleging that the property in question is a Government purampoke land.

2. Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.21802 of 2007, wherein this Court passed Ext.P3 judgment setting aside the order of eviction issued against him and directed the Tahsildar to issue show cause notice to the petitioner inviting objection and to hear him. Petitioner, based on Ext.P3 judgment applied for measurement and demarcation of the property covered by Ext.P1 and approached this Court for a direction to the Taluk Surveyor to conduct measurement and demarcation of the boundary of his property. By Ext.P4 judgment, there was a direction to consider the request and to take a decision within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Since the direction in Ext.P4 judgment was not complied with, the petitioner alleging contempt filed CoC,271 of 2008, wherein the Taluk Surveyor filed an affidavit stating that “if the petitioner wanted to correct the purchase certificate, the petitioner can approach the appropriate authority, the Taluk Surveyor and the Taluk Surveyor is not a competent person to do anything in that respect and accordingly the Contempt of Court Case was closed reserving the right of the petitioner to initiate appropriate action. The petitioner then approached the first respondent on 09.07.2012 narrating the above facts and requesting to correct the mistakes that crept in the purchase certificate by correcting the survey number of the property. The first respondent after considering the petitioner's representation forwarded the same to the Land Revenue Commissioner who in turn forwarded it to the District Collector who again forwarded it to the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent passed an order on 27.12.2012 directing the petitioner to apply for a fresh purchase certificate for a lesser area of 4 cents of land by ordering that the remaining 9 cents of land is a road purampoke cancelling Ext P1 by Ext P9 order. It is Ext.P9 that is challenged in the Writ Petition primarily on the ground that cancellation of Ext.P1 pattayam/purchase certificate was illegal particularly when the said order was passed without hear