The mere payment of tax and possession without valid title cannot challenge the eviction notice under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be in absolute possession and enjoyment of an extent of 2.45 Ares of property in Re.Sy. No.6 Block No.24 of Kaudiar Village (old Sy. No.1713/8 of Madathuvilakom Village), which was lying adjacent to another extent of 5.168 cents of property purchased by the petitioner's father by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 22.02.1978. It may straight away be noticed as regards the extent of 2.45 Ares of property, the petitioner claims that he was remitting tax with reference to the afore property, as is evidenced by Ext.P7(b) tax receipt, however, not producing the title deed with respect to the property in question. The petitioner further contends that there was a proposal for acquisition of an extent of 51.55 Ares of property comprised in Sy.Nos. 1713/5, 1713/7, as well as 1713/8 of old Madathuvilakom Village and as regards the property in Sy. No.1713/8, the petitioner's father made a representation to the Government pointing out that the afore property may be exempted from the land acquisition proceedings. By the letter at Ext.P1 dated 23.10.1986, the Government has also stayed the steps taken for dispossessing the petitioner's father till a final decision is taken on the request made as above. Later, the Deputy Collector (land acquisition), issued an order at Ext.P2. The afore order dated 24.04.1987, shows that though the proposal was for acquisition of 51.55 Ares, ultimately, the Government sought to limit it to 49.10 Ares, and a decision was also taken for depositing compensation as regards 49.10 Ares in the court. The petitioner further states that the Government has already decided by Ext.P3 dated 17.05.1988, to exempt the property referred to above from the acquisition. The petitioner, on the basis of Ext.P3, contends that he was holding the property in absolute possession from 1998 onwards, and it was only in 2023, a notice at Ext.P4 came to be issued by the Tahsildar (Land Records), directing the petitioner to produce documents in support of his title as regards the property in question. The petitioner further states that he filed Ext.P6 seeking extension of time for filing detailed reply/objection, and thereafter, he was served with a notice at Ext.P8, as per which steps were initiated calling for objections with reference to the requirement to correct the village records. This is followed by a notice at Ext.P9 under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act , 957 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), proposing to evict the petitioner from the property in question. In such circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court, seeking to challenge the notice at Ext.P9. 2. Heard Sri. N. Nandakumara Menon, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt. Smitha S. Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri. Aswin Sethumadhavan, learned Senior Government Pleader.

3. With reference to the averments in the writ petition as well as the exhibits produced as above, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that but for the issue of Ext.P9 notice, no proceedings/ order with reference to the provisions of the Act have been issued to the petitioner. According to him, the steps taken for evicting the petitioner from the property as above are not in accordance with the statutory prescription. He would also invite the attention of this Court to the payment of tax as well as the Thandaper account as regards the property in question, and point out that the entire proceedings require to be set aside.

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader relies on the detailed counter affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent herein to contend that the petitioner herein has no title with respect to t