JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C)No.20705/2015 is called into question by the appellant on various grounds.

2. To state with brevity, the party respondents filed the afore Writ Petition claiming to be social workers and belonging to the ‘landless tribal community’ in the Wayanad district. They allege that the lease or assignment – as the case may be – of 5.5358 hectares of land in the Edachira Desom, Wayanad district, in favour of the appellant is illegal; and consequently, that the Government Orders authorising the same, as evidenced through Exts.P4 and P5, are untenable and liable to be quashed. As a corollary, they contend that, since there are several landless people - particularly belonging to the tribal community - still awaiting allotment in the State of Kerala, once the alleged encroachment of land by the appellant is removed, the same should be allotted to deserving persons, thus implementing Ext.P6 order of the Government of Kerala.

3. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition, holding that the appellant is in encroachment of the land; consequently quashing Exts.P4 and P5. Certain concomitant directions have also been issued, including that the lands so recovered shall be distributed to eligible persons in accordance with law.

4. Sri.M.Sasindran – learned counsel for the appellant, argued that, what ought to have been construed only as a Public Interest Litigation, has been considered by the learned Single Judge, to end in the impugned judgment, issuing directions in rem rather than in personam. He then argued that the findings of the learned Single Judge are based on no cogent or reliable material, but on surmises and that this is manifest from the fact that it is recorded therein that ‘prima facie, the assignment is unsustainable and is to be interfered with by this Court’ (sic). He pointed out that there are no affirmative findings in the judgment, but still the learned Judge has gone forward to cancel Ext.P5, which is a valid order, without following any of the procedures known to law, particularly because its issue and cancellation are governed by specified statutes and statutory schemes. He thus prayed that this Appeal be allowed.

5. Sri.V.Sajith Kumar – learned counsel for the party respondents, argued that his clients approached the learned Single Judge because, when they were waiting to be allotted lands under ‘The Zero Landless Scheme’, the appellant was allowed to be in possession of 5.5358 hectares of land illegally and without any authority. He argued that the findings of the learned Single Judge are based on facts and documents; and consequently, that quashing of Exts.P4 and P5 cannot be found to be wrong. He prayed that, therefore, this Appeal be dismissed.

6. Sri.Sherry J. Thomas – learned Special Government Pleader (Revenue), submitted, relying upon a counter affidavit filed by the 9th respondent – District Collector, that the land belongs to the Government; but conceded that Ext.P5 order had been issued in favour of the appellant. He nevertheless pointed out that, through Ext.P7 order, the Government has already taken care to provide for the protection of the tribals and prayed that consequently, all matters be left open to the competent Authority to be considered, including on the question of validity of Ext.P5 and orders, if any, issued pursuant to it. He concluded his submissions saying that, since the party respondents have already approached the Government through Ext.P9, the same will be taken note of and necessary action taken, after affording necessary opportunities to both sides.

7. Going through the materials on record, it becomes evident that the appellant traces their title/right over the land in question initially through Ext.P4, which is an order issued by the Government on 06.05.2015 at the rate of Rs.100/- per Acre for a period of thirty years. For some reason, through Ext.P5 dated 25.03.2015, the Government cancelled Ext.P4 an