SEBASTIAN KURUVILA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the orders Ext.P8 and P13 issued by the Government.

(2.) The petitioners' case in short are the following: They are the owners and in possession of 0.3175 hectors of land comprised in Survey Nos.36/6 and 36/9 in Block No.60 of Kattappana Village in Udumbanchola Taluk. It is stated that the petitioners and their predecessors -in -interest have possessed the said property since 1952. There are different cultivations as well as grown -up trees like Coconut trees, Jackfruit trees etc. The mother of the first petitioner Smt.Aley Kuruvila possessed the property originally. She is the grandmother of petitioners 2 and 3. 13 cents have been purchased from one Smt.Annamma Paulose. The petitioners have stated in para.2 of the writ petition, the details of various documents, namely, Ext.P1 -Field Register and Sketch of land pertaining to Survey No.36/6 and 36/9 in Block No.60 of Kalkunthal Village in Udumbanchola Taluk, Idukki District (it is submitted that the Kattappana Village has been formed dividing Kalkunthal Village), Ext.P2 -the relevant page of Kaivasam Register (Possession Register) pertaining to Survey Nos.36/6 and 36/9 of Block No.60 of Kattappana Village, and Ext.P3 which is the relevant page of the Basic Tax Register with respect to the items of properties referred to in Ext.P2. The petitioners therefore point out that the same will show that the properties were in uninterrupted possession of the petitioners and their predecessors even before 01/01/1977. Therefore, they are governed by Rules for assignment, namely, the Kerala Land Assignment (Regularisation of Occupation of Forest Land Prior to 01/01/1977) Special Rules, 1993. But, proceedings were initiated by the fourth respondent Tahsildar under Section 12 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 directing surrender of property. This was appealed against before the District Collector as per Ext.P5 who dismissed it by Ext.P6 order. Challenging Ext.P6, an appeal was filed before the Land Revenue Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal by Ext.P8 also.

(3.) The further challenge made in the matter by way of revision petition was rejected by the Government as per Ext.P13. In Ext.P13 order, the Government was of the view that the revision petition ought to have been filed on or before 14/01/2012. But since the same was filed only on 07/02/2012 there was a delay of 23 days. It is contended that the order is one passed without hearing the petitioners.