RAJ P. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs;

(2.) According to the petitioner, he is a permanent resident at Chinnakanal Village of Udumbanchola Taluk in Idukki District. He is a member of Scheduled Caste and has no residential building of his own. He is in possession of 5 cents of land in Sy. No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village. The property was originally occupied by one Kurishuhumathu, who had resided in the property along with his family for decades together. After the death of Kurishuhumathu, his wife and children submitted Ext.P1 and P1(b) applications dtd. 6/12/2010 for assignment of land. The 5 cents of property now in the possession of the petitioner was handed over to him on the basis of Ext.P2 agreement dtd. 25/4/2019 executed between the petitioner and the children of Kurishuhumathu. On the application of the petitioner, he was included in the beneficiary list of the Kerala Government Life Mission Housing Scheme as per Ext.P3 list approved in the meeting dtd. 20/12/2019 of the 5th respondent Land Assignment Committee. On 9/3/2020, the 6th respondent Grama Panchayath issued Ext.P4 no objection certificate for carrying out the construction of the house in the property possessed by the petitioner and had disbursed an amount of Rs.40,000.00 being the 1st installment for house construction. While so, on 20/4/2020 respondents 8 to 11 trespassed into the property and attempted to prevent the construction. The petitioner was then constrained to file OS No.79 of 2020 before the Munsiff Court, Devikulam seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against respondents 7 to 11. An interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner as per Ext.P6 order dtd. 22/5/2020 passed in the said suit. On the basis of a complaint filed by the aforesaid respondents, the Village Officer, Chinnakkanal issued Ext.P7 order dtd. 2/6/2020 directing the petitioner to stop the construction. By issuing Ext.P8 notice dtd. 2/6/2020, a hearing was conducted by the 4th respondent Tahsildar. After enquiry, the 4th respondent Tahsildar, being the convenor of the 5th respondent Land Assignment Committee passed Ext.P9 order dtd. 12/6/2020, cancelling the permission granted to the petitioner as per Ext.P3. Based upon the same, the 6th respondent had canceled the building permit issued to the petitioner and it was intimated to him as per Ext.P10 order dtd. 18/6/2020. Apart from that the 6th respondent issued Ext.P11 notice dtd. 18/6/2020, demanding the petitioner to demolish the construction carried out in the property. As per Ext.P12 notice dtd. 24/6/2020, the 6th respondent directed the petitioner to refund the sum of Rs.40,000.00 which was already disbursed to him as financial assistance for construction of the residential building. On the basis of a communication issued by the 7th respondent Tribal Extension Officer, the 5th respondent arrived at a conclusion that the property possessed by the petitioner is a tribal settlement area. In fact, before granting permission to the petitioner to construct the building, the Taluk Surveyor had submitted Ext.P13 report before the 5th respondent on 20/9/2019 specifically mentioning that the property is situated in Re-sy. No.183/2 in Block No.8 and the same is Government Puramboke as per the basic tax register. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P14 application dtd. 17/6/2020 before the 7th respondent seeking the details of the aforesaid property to which Ext.P15 reply dtd. 29/6/2020 was given by the 7th respondent wherein it is stated that there is no document to show the property as a tribal settlement area. However, it is mentioned in that reply that the property is in possession of the tribal people and there is a temple in that property. But in Ext.P16 report dtd. 1/6/2020 filed by the Village Officer before the 5th respondent, it has been specifically mentioned that the temple claimed by respondents 7 to 11 is situated 30 meters away from the property in the possession of the petitioner.

(3.) The 4th respondent Tahsildar Udumbanchola Taluk filed counter affidavit producing therewith Exts.R4(a) to R4(c) documents. In the counter affidavit, it is contended that one Chinnappan encroached around five acres of Government land in Sy. No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Thavalam and out of the encroached land, 5 cents has been transferred to the petitioner in the year 2019 for five years by way of an agreement. Chinnappan mentioned the said transfer in Ext.R4(a) complaint dtd. 15/10/2019 filed by him before the District Collector. On the application of the petitioner, the Village Officer of Chinnakkanal granted a special possession document on 20/12/2019 to the petitioner for inclusion of his name in the beneficiaries list of Chinnakanal Grama Panchayath. But subsequently, some individuals belonging to Scheduled Tribe Muthuvan community submitted a complaint before the 3rd respondent Sub Collector, Devikulam to cancel that document stating that the petitioner obtained that document by playing fraud. A mass petition was also received on 10/6/2020 before the 4th respondent signed by more than hundred persons belonging to Muthuvan tribal settlement. Apart from that the Tribal Extension Officer, Munnar also sent Ext.R4(b) letter dtd. 9/6/2020 to the 4th respondent informing that the land on which the petitioner has begun construction of a building is part parcel of tribal settlement. Thereafter, the Sub Collector, Devikulam, Tribal Extension Officer, and the 4th respondent Tahsildar visited the land on 2/6/2020 and it was found that the petitioner did not occupy the land as stipulated in the Government Order dtd. 16/1/2015. As per the Government Order, the applicant should be a resident at the land at least for 17 years. As per the statement made in OS No.79 of 2020 filed by the petitioner, it is evident that he occupied the land only in the previous year. The 4th respondent then conducted a hearing of all the parties concerned on 10/6/2020 with prior notice. In that hearing also, the petitioner admitted that he purchased the land from Chinnappan recently. Then the Taluk Land Assignment Committee decided to cancel the special possession document issued to the petitioner on 20/12/2019. The special possession document issued to the petitioner in respect of 3 cents of land in survey No.34/1 near the Shanmugavilasam area was due to misconception. On coming to know about the mistake, corrective steps were taken after proper verification. The real intention of the petitioner is to venture into a large-scale tourism business. On enquiry, the 4th respondent got information that the aforesaid Chinnappan encroached around 5 acres of Government land in survey No.34/1, near the tribal settlement area known as Chembakathozhu Kudi. From him, the petitioner purchased some areas of land by way of lease and recently made some constructions in the form of tents or portable shelters and now running it as a camp site in the name and style 'Munnar Jungle Camp'. The application under the Life Mission Scheme is only a cover-up for obtaining licence from Panchayat authorities as a permanent structure is required for it. The petitioner is not entitled to get a special possession document for three cents of land for the purpose of the Life Mission Scheme as per the guidelines issued by the Government. The respondent has already initiated action to evict said Chinnappan and the petitioner from the Government Land in survey No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village under the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder.