Jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer limited by Sec.27A(11) of the Act; non-compliance does not apply as conditions were met.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

i. “issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the operation and all further proceedings in pursuance to Exts.P8 and P10 orders of the 4th respondent;

ii. issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that Ext-P5 proceeding of the 4th respondent was strictly in accordance with law and hence legally sustainable;

iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext-P11 petition, with notice to the petitioner, in the light of Exts-P5, P6 and P7, forthwith;

iv. issue such other writ, order or direction which may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case;

v. dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the Vernacular Language.” [sic]

2. According to the petitioner, he secured ownership and possession over 29 cents of property comprised in Re.sy No. 1/2 of Puliyannoor Village on 22.12.2009. The 4^th respondent issued Ext.P5 order deleting the property having an extent of 20 cents comprised in Ext.P1 document from the Data Bank on 06.03.2023 is the submission. The 6^th respondent sent Ext.P6 letter to the 3^rd respondent stating that no portion of the property comprised in Ext.P1 document was acquired is the submission of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the 3^rd respondent issued Ext.P7 direction to the 5^th respondent stating that no portion of the petitioner's property was acquired. Thereafter, the 4^th respondent issued Ext.P8 order canceling Ext.P5 order, even without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is the submission. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 40806/2023. This Court set aside Ext.P8 on a short point that Ext.P8 is an order passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Based on Ext.P9(a) order, the 4^th respondent again considered the matter and reiterated what he stated in Ext.P8. But, Ext.P10 is a detailed order. Aggrieved by Ext.P10, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader.

4. When this writ petition came up for consideration, an Advocate Commission was taken by the petitioner and a detailed report is filed by the Advocate Commissioner. The conclusion portion of the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner is extracted hereunder :

“Based on the inspection conducted on 22.11.2025, the measurements taken on site, and the documents produced by both sides, the following findings are respectfully submitted for the consideration of this Hon'ble Court:

(a) The petitioner is presently in physical possession of the entire extent of land claimed in the writ petition. The land is occupied by structures, including billboards and a street-food stall, which have been in existence for a considerable period of time.

(b) Three boundary stones have been installed by the PWD, and their locations have been marked in the Annexure-A6 sketch as Points 'F', 'D' and 'E'. These stones appear to be recently placed, approximately within the last one year, and not representative of any long-standing boundary demarcation.

(c) The respondents rely primarily on the Annexure-A8 Area Register to contend that land acquisition was effected to the extent of 3.334 ares in 1995. Apart from the Area Register, no other document, such as land acquisition award, notice, compensation records, or mutation entries, has been produced to substantiate the alleged 1995 acquisition.

(d) The petitioner has been remitting land tax for 8.20 ares, as evidenced by the documents produced in the writ petition, and asserts uninterrupted