Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 27050
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
USHA K. G – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 13847/2024
Land classification must consider historical possession and ownership claims, ensuring due process in government acquisition proceedings.
Headnote:
Property - Classification - Relevant Sections - The court addressed classifications of land ownership and procedures for rectification regarding land use and possession rights, highlighting arbitrary designations of property in acquisition processes.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the classification of their property as puramboke, claiming ownership and prior possession for over 70 years, and argued the government’s acquisition proceedings were unjust.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioners had a valid claim to file for correction of the anomaly regarding land classification, recognizing their historical possession and the arbitrary nature of the government’s stance.
Issues: Whether the property classification as puramboke was justified given the petitioners' longstanding possession and the historical payment of taxes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners should be allowed to approach the appropriate authority to rectify the classification of their property based on their established possession rights.
Final Decision: Writ petition disposed of with directions to the authorities to rectify property classification based on petitioners' application.
Petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by the classification of their property as puramboke.
2. It is averred that by Ext.P2 petitioners came in ownership and possession of certain extent of property. When the land was in use of petitioners’ predecessors tax was paid in respect of the property as evident from Ext.P3 receipt. While so the Government proposed to acquire the land for widening of the road at Statue Junction at Thripunithura and in the acquisition proceedings the property was treated as puramboke land. Petitioners submit that the said action of the respondents treating their property as puramboke is absolutely arbitrary and unjust inasmuch as the property was in the possession of their ancestors for more than 70 years. In the said circumstance petitioners have submitted Ext.P12 request before the 5th respondent for correcting the anomaly.
3. Learned Government Pleader upon instruction submitted that additional 6th respondent, Tahsildar (LR) is the appropriate authority to take action in this regard. Thereupon the petitioners would submit that they will submit a proper application before the Tahsildar (LR) concerned.
After hearing both sides, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition as follows:
- Petitioners shall file an appropriate application before the additional 6th respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. If such an application is filed as directed above, the additional 6th respondent shall take up the said application and finalise the proceedings requested therein within an outer limit of two months thereafter, with notice to the petitioners.
- With the abovesaid direction the writ petition is disposed of.
