HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
LOYOLA THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C)/41315/2018
Property - Land Tenure - Act Section List - The court emphasized that the valid purchase certificate protects the petitioner's possession until the ongoing appeal challenging it is resolved, and the respondents cannot dispossess the petitioner based on unverified claims.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claims ownership of 9.50 acres of land through a valid purchase certificate issued in 1982. He accused the forest officials of attempting to survey his land, asserting that the purchase certificate remains valid and should prevent any eviction until the pending appeal regarding its cancellation is resolved.
Issues: Whether the petitioner can be dispossessed of the land despite holding a valid purchase certificate pending the resolution of an appeal against it.
Ratio Decidendi: Possession rights derived from a valid purchase certificate cannot be disturbed until legal challenges to that certificate are conclusively resolved.
Final Decision: The petitioner shall not be dispossessed until final orders are passed in the pending appeal regarding the purchase certificate.
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed with following prayers :
(i) “Call for the entire records relating to the above case; (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents or anybody under them from making any survey and demarcation and putting up of boundary wall and jhendas into petitioner's property, as long as Ext.P2 purchase certificate is holding valid and is not cancelled by any competent appellate authority.
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, commanding the respondent forest officials not to make any obstructions and objections to the smooth use and occupation of petitioner's property covered under Ext.P2 purchase certificate.
(iv) Grant such other and further reliefs which this Hon'ble Court feels just and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case, including the entire costs of the proceedings.”
2. According to the petitioner, he is an agriculturist who is in absolute ownership, possession and enjoyment of 9.50 acres of land in Malampuzha Village and he purchased the property as per Ext.P1 assignment deed from one Scaria Thomas (Zacheria). The said Scaria purchased the same from M/s. United Plantations, Kottayam in the year 1973. It is the case of the petitioner that as per SM proceedings, Ext.P2 purchase certificate was issued for the whole 9.50 acres by the Land Tribunal, Ottappalam-IV in the year 1982 to Sri.Scaria Thomas. It is the further case of the petitioner that after purchase of the property, he has been conducting several cultivation in the property and has been paying land tax in the Village Office till 1995-96. Ext.P3 is the tax receipt. It is also the case of the petitioner that he had obtained licence from the Rubber Board of India for continuing the rubber plantations. It is also stated in the writ petition that he had constructed a residential building numbered by Malampuzha Panchayat as MP II/2-211, for which building tax has been remitted by Ext.P4 tax receipt. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2007, the petitioner was served with an eviction notice by the Tahsildar and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.(C.) No. 17234/2007 and this Court was pleased to stay the same. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent along with the subordinates came to the petitioner's property with their surveyor party and made attempt to survey and demarcate the petitioner's property and reduced the same as part of forest land. According to the petitioner, the purchase certificate was issued way back in the year 1982 and has not been challenged and hence, this writ petition was filed with the above-
mentioned prayers.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader (Forests).
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions in the writ petition. The counsel also submitted that the officer concerned gave a wrong submission before this Court which was recorded by this Court on 26.3.2019, in which it is stated that the Pattayam issued to the petitioner is cancelled. The counsel submitted that the respondents filed an appeal against the purchase certificate and the same is now pending before the Appellate Authority (LR), Thrissur. The counsel submitted that as long as Ext.P2 purchase certificate is in force, the respondents have no authority to interfere with the possession of the petitioner.
5. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand submitted that the property is part of the vested forest ഏവർ ഭഗവത(cid:9) ദ(cid:11)വസ(cid:13)(cid:14) മലവ(cid:17)ര(cid:14)
included in VFC item No. 31/1 ( ). The Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner has no authority to continue in possession of the property and if there is any grievance to the petitioner, the petitioner has to approach the Forest Tribunal.
6. When this writ petition came up for consideration, I directed the officer concerned to file an affidavit before this Court for g
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.