Property rights established by prior decrees must be considered in eviction proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act.

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

“i) Declare that the respondents cannot evict the petitioners from their respective properties covered by Ext.P1 decree under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. ii) Call for records leading to Ext.P5 to P5(b) and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the same.

iii) In the alternative issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 1st Respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P6 appeals filed by the Petitioners within such time as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, until then staying the operation of Exhibit P5 order;

iv) issue such other orders, writs or directions as are deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.

v) award cost of this proceedings to the petitioners.”

[sic]

2. The 1st petitioner as well as the late husband of the WP(C) NO. 34402 OF 2017 2nd petitioner and the father of the 3rd petitioner and their predecessors in interest are owners in possession of land in survey Nos.980 & 981 of Kizhakkummuri Village for the last several decades is the submission of the petitioners. They were residing in their respective properties after erecting residential houses is the further submission. In the year 1978, the Government had tried to evict the predecessors of the petitioners from their respective properties alleging that the aforesaid lands are Government lands. Hence, the 1st petitioner and predecessors in interest of petitioners 2 and 3 as well as two others had filed a civil suit as OS No.445/1978 before the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda impleading the Kerala State Government as well as Government officials as defendants. The suit was contested and ultimately a decree declaring the ownership of the plaintiffs therein in the said properties was passed by the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda is the submission. A consequential permanent prohibitory WP(C) NO. 34402 OF 2017 injunction was also passed restraining the Government and its officials from entering the property or evicting the plaintiffs therein from entering the property is the further submission. Ext.P1 is the decree. The Government filed an appeal before the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda against Ext.P1

decree as AS No. 67/1986. The said appeal was also contested and ultimately dismissed. Ext.P2 is the decree. Therefore, it is submitted that the plaintiffs therein including the petitioners 1 and 2 and the predecessor in interest of the 2nd petitioner are declared as the owners of the respective properties mentioned as decree shcedule item Nos. 1,2 and 4 of Ext.P1 decree. Thus the properties within the boundaries mentioned in the decree schedule are being enjoyed the petitioners as true owners on the basis of the declaration made by the civil court is the contention of the petitioners.

The 1st petitioner had transferred his right in 7 cents of land which is the property mentioned as item No.1 in Ext.P1 WP(C) NO. 34402 OF 2017 decree schedule in favour of his son is the further submission. After the death of the father of the 3rd petitioner namely, Kunjurvareed/1st plaintiff in Ext.P1 decree, his legal heirs including the 3rd petitioner had partitioned the property which is item No.1 in Ext.P1 decree schedule land is the contention. It is submitted that they are residing in their respective property after constructing residential houses. The 2nd petitioner is also residing in the decree schedule item No.3 property constructing a residential house, which was constructed by late husband of the 2nd petitioner, Prabhakaran is the submission. The 3rd petitioner and his brothers are jointly in possession of 1.45 acres of land in survey Nos. 980/2, 980/4, 980/5 and 981/2 in the Kizhakkummuri village is the contention. But, subsequently, a notice as per Sec.12 of the Land Conservancy Act was issued to the petitioners by the 2nd respondent and they were directed to appear for a hearing. The petitioners appeared WP(C) NO. 34402 OF 2017 before the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that without considering the contenti