JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran J., If one were to measure this writ petition solely by its forensic merits and factual facets, we are certain that it would not justify its longevity in this Court from the year 2008.

2. At the heart of controversy in this case is the action taken by the Revenue authorities of the Government of Kerala under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 [hereinafter referred to as KLC Act for short], to resume an extent of 115.8900 hectares of land in Ernad-Manjeri, which is claimed to be in the possession of the first petitioner herein.

3. The first petitioner claims that it is a public limited company, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and asserts to be in possession of the afore extent of land under valid title. The second petitioner is stated to be one of its share holders.

4. However, the claim of the first petitioner over the property in question has been refuted by the competent Authorities under the KLC Act, leading to Exts. P22, P27 and P32 orders, issued by the concerned Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and the Government respectively. The petitioners impugn these orders in this writ petition on various