SHANMUGHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P3, P4, P5 and P7 orders and seeking for a consequential direction to the 4th respondent to issue patta to the petitioner in respect of 4 1/2 cents of property in Sy.No.138/1/7 of Mattoor Village, Aluva Taluk.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is in possession of 22 1/2 cents of property in Sy.No.138/1/7 of Mattoor Village, Aluva Taluk, which was in the possession of the petitioner and his predecessor in interest from 1950 onwards. Out of the 22 1/2 cents of property, the petitioner's father obtained patta for 18 cents of property and the remaining 4 1/2 cents of property is in the possession of the father of the petitioner from 1950 onwards. Several trees were planted in the remaining 4 1/2 cents of the property and after the death of the petitioner's father in 2001, he is in possession of the above said property. By Ext.P1, Patta was issued by the 4th respondent with respect to 18 cents of properties in Sy.No.138/1/7 of Manickamangalam Village on 18/11/1961. Later the property covered by Ext.P1 patta was gifted to the petitioner by his father as per Ext.P2 Gift deed executed on 19/4/1988. The petitioner is also in possession of the 4 1/2 cents of property which is lying contagious to the property covered by Ext.P1 Patta. Though a suit was filed for declaration of title with respect to the above-said 4 1/2 cents of property claiming adverse possession, the same was dismissed. It is contended that the petitioner requires the abovesaid 4 1/2 cents of property for the beneficial enjoyment of the property. Thereupon the petitioner made an application under the Kerala Land Assignment Act 1960, to assign 4 1/2 cents of property belonging to the Government to the petitioner. The said application was dismissed as per Ext.P3 order dtd. 3/4/2018, holding that the petitioner is not entitled for the land as the 4 1/2 cents appurtenant is not necessary for the protection or beneficial enjoyment of registered holding. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 order the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent which was rejected as per Ext.P4. Further, a revision was preferred before the 2nd respondent which also ended up in dismissal as per Ext.P5 order. Though the petitioner preferred further revision before the 1st respondent, finding that the said revision is not maintainable, the writ petition filed as W.P.(C)No.75/2020 seeking early disposal of the said revision petition was withdrawn as per Ext.P6. While so, Ext.P7 notice was issued as per the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act, 1957 to evict the petitioner from the above-mentioned property. It is in the above-mentioned circumstance that the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the