JIJI ZACHARIA Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal and the writ petition are at the instance of the same parties. The matter is related to cancellation of patta and transfer of registry in respect of the land comprised in survey No.34/1 having an extent of 2.62 acres of Chinnakanal Village, Udumbanchola Taluk in Idukki District. Consequent upon cancellation, land is ordered to be restored to the revenue invoking the Land Conservancy Act, 1957. A learned Single Judge of this Court heard the matter relating to cancellation of patta in W.P.(C).No.6954/2010 and affirmed the decision of revenue to cancel the patta. This is how the writ appeal was filed. In the land in question, a resort is being run, namely, Green Jungle Resort. Chinnakanal Grama Panchayat refused to issue licence for running the resort. Accordingly, W.P.(C).No.26746/2020 was filed. Since both matters are interconnected, these matters are disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) The Tahsildar of Udumbanchola Village initiated proceedings for cancellation of the patta as against Joy Thomas alleging that patta had been illegally obtained. He cited six reasons in his show cause dtd. 10/4/2008 which reads as follows:

(3.) Joy Thomas is the patta holder. He transferred the property to his nephew Jiji Zacharia, in the year 1995, and Jiji Zacharia transferred his property to his wife Anita Jiji in the year 2004 by a sale deed. After hearing all the parties, the patta was cancelled as per order dtd. 12/5/2008; this was on the finding that the patta was illegally obtained by Joy Thomas, suppressing the fact that he had 4 acres of land and that he was not eligible to obtain patta. Apart from the above reason, the Tahsildar also doubted genuineness of the patta for the reason that there are no details of issuance of such patta in the assignment register No.II maintained at the Nedumkandam office. Further, it was noted that there was no payment of the land value, timber value, demarcation charges as per the law under Rule 9(7) of the Land Assignment Rules, 1964. It is also noted that patta is seen to be issued only after 15 years, and as per the Rules, the patta should be issued within 3 months after the order of assignment. Thus, it is observed in the order that, both on the grounds of ineligibility and for want of proof of genuineness of patta claimed, the land in question will have to be restored to the revenue. It was taken up before the Land Revenue Commissioner in revision. The Land Revenue Commissioner affirmed the order of the Tahsildar by a detailed order. Apart from the above, the Land Revenue Commissioner also noted that land can be assigned only for the purpose of cultivation, and presently, the land being used to run a resort is in violation of the Land Assignment Rules. It is also noted in the order of the Land Revenue Commissioner that the land is situated in the Cardamom Hill Reserve and therefore, any illegal occupation of the land can only be regularised by obtaining patta under the Kerala Land Assignment (Regularisation of Occupations of Forest Lands prior to 1/1/1977) Special Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Special Rules'). However, it is seen that the patta has been issued under the Land Assignment Rules, 1964, which clearly indicates a doubt regarding the genuineness of the patta. The learned Single Judge who heard the matter relating to cancellation of patta, found that patta is a forged document and the assignee was not eligible to receive such patta. Apart from the above, it is also found by the learned Single Judge that the land cannot be used other than the purpose for which it was issued and here the use of land was in violation of the conditions of the patta. The learned Single Judge took note of various precedents of this Court justifying cancellation of patta for violation of patta conditions.