CYRIL PRESENTATION Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has failed in obtaining a writ of certiorari to vacate orders by the revenue authorities, whereby the lease of Puramboke lands been granted to his rival, the 3rd respondent. The appellant's case is that he was the owner of and in occupation of Sy. No. 336/12 in Mararikulam South Village, Ambalapuzha taluk, and, at the time of the survey, its western boundry was the Arabian Sea. His case further is that the sea has since receded, some new land has been formed, which he had begun to occupy as part and parcel of his adjacent property. It is common ground that the person who has been given the lease, had been allowed in the property to reside and run a tea shop, sometime prior to 1953, when the village authorities found the newly formed land to be Government property. The appellant claims to have, on May 25, 1953, applied for a Kuthagapattdm lease of the newly formed land. The Tahsildar, however, started, on the report of the village officer, encroachment proceedings against both the appellant and the 3rd respondent, who, on April 22, 1955, applied for the grant of the lease, on the ground that he had been residing therein for 11 years. The appellant alleges that the Tahsildar, without recording evidence or affording the parties opportunity to adduce evidence, passed orders, on April 27, 1955, directing arrears of prohibitory assessment to be realised from both the applicants and fine of one rupee from each. The Tahsildar further came to the conclusion that the later applicant, who had later applied for the lease, was in sole possession of the property and should be given the lease under Rule 24(4) of the Kuthagapattom Rules. The appellant preferred an appeal against that order to the Collector, who called for the report from the Tahsildar; and the latter sent in a report that both parties were enjoying the land for the past 15 years, and that the person, who had later applied, was indigent and in physical possession. It is averred that the Collector, on the basis of the report, directed lease to be granted to the 3rd respondent and held him to be entitled to it under Rules 24(2) and 24(4). The appellant's revision petition before the Board of Revenue was dismissed, and the effort to have the order reviewed, was also unsuccessful. Thereafter, the writ petition, from which this appeal arises, was filed; and it also has been dismissed.

(2.) The learned Judge, declining to issue the writ, has held that the proceedings before the revenue authorities were administrative, no auction was necessary, and the failure to auction would not amount to irregularity. He also reached the conclusion that the foundation of the orders by the revenue authorities, was his rival's being in possession, the proceedings were administrative, quasi judicial approach was not required, and, therefore, no question of observing principles of natural justice arose.

(3.) The appellant's learned advocate has urged that the enactment under which the Rule had been framed, has vested the authorities with jurisdiction, which is quasi judicial, and the learned Judge has erred in treating the proceedings to be merely administrative. The next part of the same argument is that in making the order, the Collector has given the appellant no adequate opportunity of proving his case or meeting the contents of the Tahsildar's report, which has been used in arriving at the conclusion of the respondent's being in possession for 11 years, and that the order is, therefore, bad, as it has violated principles of natural justice. It is clear that the exercise of the power is governed by the Travancore-Cochin Government Land Assignment Act, No. 33 of 1950, whose S.3 provides that Government lands may be assigned by the Government or by any prescribed authority, either absolutely, or subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions, as may be prescribed. S.4 enacts that there shall be notification that the land will be, by public auction or otherwise, assigned; which notification would call upon those, who have any claim to such land, to prefer to the officer their objections, if any, in writing within the time to be fixed by such notification. S.4(2) directs that any objection preferred within the time fixed in the notification, would be inquired into by the Tahsildar, who would pass orders in writing, either accepting or rejecting the claim and intimating in writing the fact of such disposal to the claimant. An appeal is provided for by S.6 ; and S.7 authorises rules being framed, which, are required to be published in the Gazette and thereafter to have the force of law.