SOMAVALLY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an octogenarian lady states that she is the absolute owner in title and possession of property having an extent of 40.8 cents comprised in Sy. No.42/12 of Ambalapuzha North Village. She states that the above property devolved upon her by virtue of a partition deed executed in the year 1974. She claims that proceedings were initiated by the Ambalappuzha Grama Panchayat alleging that property having an extent of about 4.8 Ares lying on the southern side of the above property is Thodu puramboke. Ext.P1 order was passed by the Secretary of the Panchayat calling upon the petitioner herein to vacate the said property. The petitioner states that challenging the said order, she preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. However, by Ext.P2 order, the appeal was dismissed. She carried the matter in appeal before the District Collector, the 3rd respondent herein. However, the appeal was dismissed by Ext.P3 order against which she preferred a revision petition before the Land Revenue Commissioner. The Land Revenue Commissioner by Ext.P6 order dated 1.10.2020, held that the revision petition preferred before the said authority was not maintainable. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 order was passed by the Panchayat Secretary being vested with powers based on G.O.(P) No.191/2016/RD dated 1.3.2016 by which the powers of the District Collector were delegated to the Panchayat Secretaries with respect to carrying out eviction from Government land. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 order was passed by the Panchayat Secretary on the strength of the above order and in that view of the matter, the remedy of the petitioner was to prefer an appeal under Section 16(3) of the Land Conservancy Act, 1957 before the Land Revenue Commissioner. It is contended that the petitioner has in the said circumstances preferred Ext.P7 challenging the impugned order before the Land Revenue Commissioner and the same is pending. According to the learned counsel, it was due to improper legal advice that the petitioner, an aged lady, had invoked a wrong jurisdiction and had suffered Ext.P6 order. Her prayer in this petition is to direct the 2nd respondent to take up her appeal and dispose it of on its merits. Her further prayer is to keep the coercive proceedings in abeyance till orders are passed on Ext.P7.

(2.) I have heard Sri.T.Naveen, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.P.Harish, the learned senior Government Pleader.

(3.) Sri. K.P.Harish, the learned senior Government Pleader submits that Section 16(1)(b) of the Land Conservancy Act provides that any person aggrieved by any decision or order under the Act of any officer under Section 15 may appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The petitioner has exhausted her entire remedies by preferring an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and thereafter by filing another appeal before the District Collector. It was taking note of these aspects that the Land Revenue Commissioner had rejected the revision petition taking note of Section 16(3) of the Act. However, it is submitted that as the petitioner has submitted Ext.P7 appeal before the 2nd respondent, the same can be considered and appropriate orders can be passed. However, he would point out that the petitioner has not preferred a stay petition before the Appellate Authority.