Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20371
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
T.A. IBRAHIM KUTTTY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT – Respondent
WP(C) 24231/2023
Proper classification and demarcation of land, particularly public land, are essential for resolving ownership disputes in accordance with local governance laws.
Headnote:
Land - Ownership Dispute - KLC Act - The court emphasized the significance of proper land classification under the KLC Act, which governs local self-government duties in regard to public lands.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner alleged illegal reclamation of a pond labeled as 'Kulam Puramboke' by the 8th respondent without permission, prompting an inquiry by local authority agents.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that a thorough inspection and survey were necessary to resolve the ownership disputes concerning the pond's classification and to clarify the competing claims over its status.
Issues: Whether the reclaimed pond is classified correctly as 'Kulam Puramboke' and to whom the ownership rights pertain amidst conflicting claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that existing property records and relevant surveys must guide the resolution of land title disputes, indicating that jurisdictional authority is crucial in determining public land designation.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, directing the District Collector to inspect and determine property classifications.
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2024 The petitioner claims that the 8th respondent has illegally reclaimed the pond in question without any permission and asserts that the pond is in the Panchayat puramboke.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 5th respondent Tahsildar, wherein it is stated as follows:
- “2. It is submitted that, 3.80 Ares in Block No. 25, Re-survey No.112/19 of Aluva East Village is recorded as “Kulam Puramboke” in the Basic Tax Register. On receiving a complaint from the petitioner that the Kulam Puramboke land is encroached by the Management of Al Hind Public School. On verification of the complaint, the 6th respondent reported that the land in question is situated near Pengattussery Muslim Jama Ath since it was reclaimed and used as the way of Al Hind Public School for the last 5 years. On the local enquiry it is revealed that there was a public pond situated near Pengattussery Jama Ath and the Village Officer submits Form A proforma along with the report as per KLC Act.
- 3. It is submitted that the Form B hearing notice was issued to the authorities of Al Hind Public School and hearing was conducted on 02.08.2023. Advocate Sajitha was present on the hearing for representing the school authorities and sought one week time to submit the statement. The statement was submitted on 09.08.2023, stating that the questioned land is in the possession of Pengattussery Muslim Jama Ath over many years and since 2011 Jama Ath trust has been constituted and running Al Hind Public School.
- 4. It is submitted that the protection of ‘Kulam Puramboke land’ is included under the duties of Local Self Government so a letter was given to the Edathala Grama Panchayath Secretary on 19.09.2023 with relevant documents relating to the subject for necessary action.
- It is submitted that the ‘Kulam Puramboke land’ is notified as ‘Pond’ in the data bank so a detailed report regarding this matter is submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fortkochi on 17.11.2023. The Pengattussery Muslim Jama Ath authorities filed I.A. No.868/2023 before the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode stating that the questioned land is mistakenly notified as ‘Kulam Puramboke’ in the Re-survey records and land is in the possession of Pengattussery Muslim Jama Ath over many years. The land in the Survey No.112/18 in Block No.25 is in the name of ‘ Pengattussery Muslim Jama Ath’ with T.P. No.20719, the questioned ‘Kulam Puramboke’ of 3.80 Ares in Block No.25 Re-survey 112/19 is situated near the above said land. Ext.R5(a) clearly shows that the land is a Kulam Puramboke.”
3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 7th respondent Panchayat, which states as follows:
- “4. It may be noted that on verification of the records, it has been revealed that till this date, the pond stated in the Writ Petition or the property is not seen included in the asset register maintained by the Panchayat. There are no records available in the panchayat even to state that the aforesaid pond was protected or maintained as a public Pond by the Panchayat. It is understood that there was a pond inside the property which belonged to the Pengattussery Muslim Jama Ath and the same was reclaimed and now it seen that tiles are paved also.
- 5. It is submitted on further enquiry made by this respondent, it is understood that the pond in question was being maintained by the Pengattussery Muslim Jama-Ath Committee from 1950 onwards as a pond of the mosque. The said facts were revealed from the minutes of the Pengattussery Muslim Jama-Ath Committee. During the site inspection, the puramboke pond is not identified and separated out of the total extent of land comprising 3.80 Ares.”
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 8th respondent submits that the property belongs to the Pengattussery Muslim Jama-ath, where a school is functioning. It is also alleged that there is a pond constructed and maintained by the Muslim Jama-ath and the same has been used for several years.
5
