N J JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is filed under Sec. 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by petitioner in W.P.(C)No.24614 of 2006, assailing the judgment dtd. 15/3/2013 in the writ petition as well as the order dtd. 6/3/2015 in R.P. No.546 of 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) The writ petition was filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash Ext.P13 order dtd. 27/7/2005 of the 3rd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Devikulam, cancelling Ext.P3 patta dtd. 26/3/1999 issued to the appellant in respect of 52.23 Ares of land situated in survey No.20/1 of KDH Village and also Ext.P17 order dtd. 3/2/2006 of the 2nd respondent District Collector, Idukki District dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against Ext.P13 proceedings. The appellant has also sought for a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the appellant 's title, possession and enjoyment of the properties covered by Ext.P3 pursuant to Exts.P13 and P17 orders. As per the impugned judgment dtd. 15/3/2013, the learned Single Judge found that the land in possession of the appellant had vested with the Government in terms of Sec. 3(1) of the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 ('KDH Act ' in short), and when a special procedure is provided under Sec. 9 of the KDH Act for assignment of such lands, in the absence of such an assignment by virtue of orders passed by the Government or the District Collector, as the case may be, Ext.P3 patta has no effect, and the authorities were justified in cancelling the same. Though the appellant by producing some additional documents filed R.P. No.546 of 2013 claiming error apparent on the face of record in the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge dismissed the review petition holding that the additional documents produced by the appellant along with the review petition could show that only proposals were made for assignment of land in cutchery settlement. The land coming under KDH Act can be assigned only invoking the provisions under the said Act. Mere instruction to assign land under the provisions of the Land Assignment Act, will not be helpful without there being any statutory powers. Therefore, the learned Single Judge found that no sufficient ground was made out by the appellant to review the impugned judgment.

(3.) Going by the averments in the Writ Petition, the case of the appellant is as under: