JACOB KURIAN Vs. TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two appellants before us, were the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge. It is not in dispute that this is third round of litigation in the High Court pertaining to the same subject matter where the appellants are occupying the building as tenants. The 3rd respondent was the owner of the property under whom, the appellants were the tenants, much prior to the property became subject matter of bought-in-land proceedings by the Government in respect of Abkari dues of the 3rd respondent. The property was brought to sale by notification in 2007, once and in 2008, four times. Ultimately, in pursuance of the notification under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, the Government as there were no bidders, took the property as bought-in-land at Rs.1/-.

(2.) APPELLANTS contended that the entire proceedings would only reveal that it is a ruse or a weapon to the 3rd respondent owner to see that the appellants are thrown out of the property without resorting to due process of law; on account of collusion between some officials of the Government and the 3rd respondent. It was a categorical stand of the appellants before the learned Single Judge that after bought-in-land proceedings, the 3rd respondent paid his dues under an amnesty scheme and this would give way for further action of resumption by the 3rd respondent seeking re-conveyance of the property. In case decision for re-conveyance of property is in favour of the 3rd respondent, now, subjecting the appellants/petitioners to eviction proceedings under the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1968, is only a ruse adopted by the

(3.) SO far as re-conveyance application, it is definite stand of the revenue authority, i.e., the Collector concerned has filed an affidavit that no re-conveyance application is pending before him filed by the 3rd respondent. As on today, subsequent to auction sale was confirmed on 15.7.2008; when Government has notified the same as Puramboke land, it becomes the property of the Government. So far as the right of the 3rd respondent to seek re-conveyance of the property, it is open to the 3rd respondent to approach the Government at any time in accordance with the procedure contemplated and it is left to the Government, to decide what should be done with the re-conveyance application. Till the property is re-conveyed to the 3rd respondent, the property will be the property of the Government and the only procedure under which appellants could be evicted is, by resorting to the provisions of above said Act. It is under this Act the notice, which is under challenge was issued .