Back
2013 Supreme(Online)(KER) 42423
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MANJULA CHELLUR, JC, A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
V S SHANAVAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 21189/2012
['P VIJAYAKUMAR ,M V ASHIM,B HARRYLAL,C R REGHUNATHAN']
The ruling clarified that ongoing administrative processes regarding land encroachment are to be prioritized, limiting further court intervention unless necessary after inquiries are complete.
Headnote:
Encroachment - Tribal Land - Land Revenue Act - Section 19(1), Section 22 - The court interpreted the provisions regarding encroachment and authority to reclaim land, ultimately reinforcing existing proceedings and emphasizing the need for timely resolution of appeals regarding land disputes.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner's public activist claim against encroachments by a charitable society on land designated for a Tribal Colony. Allegations of obstructing tribal rights and illegal occupation were raised, prompting a writ of mandamus for enquiry and recovery of lands.
Issues: Whether further court intervention was warranted given existing administrative enquiries regarding alleged land encroachments on tribal designated land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that existing administrative actions sufficiently addressed the encroachment issues raised, thereby not necessitating additional court orders. The court emphasized efficient resolution of pending appeals concerning land disputes.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for timely completion of pending appeal proceedings.
JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur, C.J.
This petition is filed by the petitioner in the nature of a public activist who is claiming to be the General Secretary of one movement by name 'Anti Corruption Movement', Kerala complaining that an extent of land measuring 12.2 Ares in RS No.14/4 and 86.3 Ares in RS No.14/7 of Malampuzha-I Village set apart for Tribal Colony by the Government is encroached upon by several business concerns especially 8th respondent claiming to be a charitable society under the guise of purchasing some lands which actually meant for Tribal Colony.
2. Several allegations are made against 8th respondent contending that the attempts of the Tribal people to secure land meant for them have all become futile as 8th respondent has driven away the tribals from their settlements and blocked excess of their holdings by encroaching the Government land. With these averments, he sought for the following reliefs against the respondents in the form of writ of mandamus.
“i. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the
1st respondent to cause to conduct immediate and exhaustive enquiry, comprising of the different Department Heads including Director of Survey, District Collector and Conservator of Forest and also enlisting presence of petitioner and affected tribal people, to cause measurement of the actual extent of the property in the possession of the 8th respondent and to effect recovery of the whole property found to be in illegal occupation of the 8th respondent, to be restored to the Forest Department and Tribal Welfare Department for the reallocation to the Tribal Colony and cause resettlement of the tribals.
ii. To issue Writ of Mandamus commanding the
1st respondent to order a Vigilance enquiry against officials of Forest, Revenue and Survey Departments for their lapses in permitting the encroachments and illegal occupation of the Forest and Tribal lands in Malampuzha-I Village by the 8th respondent after manipulating the records of the Revenue, Forest and survey Department.
Iii. Grand such other reliefs that may be proper and necessary in the interest of justice.”
3. In response to the averments in the writ petition, Government filed counter affidavit of the 4th respondent District Collector, Palakkad. The details furnished in the counter affidavit clearly indicates, at the instance of the very same petitioner herein, proceedings were initiated before RDO, Palakkad to enquire into the facts whether 8th respondent is encroaching any of the land meant for tribal colony.
4. It is also brought on record that ultimately after holding an enquiry RDO concluded that 8th respondent has encroached upon a portion of a land set apart for tribal colony. Challenging Ext.P5 order of the RDO, an appeal is filed before the District Collector and the matter is pending before the District Collector. It is also not in dispute that in terms of Ext.R4(a), the District Collector has granted stay of the operation of Ext.P5 order of RDO. This writ petition is filed in August 2012 and the order of RDO is dated 30.05.2012. We fail to understand in the light of action already initiated by the revenue authorities, who has the opportunity of ascertaining factual issues regarding the alleged encroachment, what further direction has to be given to the authorities concerned. If the order at Ext.P5 indicates that certain portion of the land set apart for tribal colony is in possession of 8th respondent, it must have been based on some factual situation after enquiry report by Tahsildar. If there is any confusion with regard to the measurement or difference of opinion, it is always open to the petitioner herein to seek survey of the land in question by authorities concerned in the appeal pending before the District Collector.
5. Learned Government Pleader submits based on the counter affidavit that a joint inspection report of all the authorities concerned is also part of the records before the District Collector, Palakkad. In the light of above facts and circumstance
