JOY JOSEPH S/O. JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THRIUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is stated to be in ownership of four acres of land in Survey No.734 of Vagamon Village, on the strength of Ext.P5 sale deed, has approached this Court, aggrieved by the steps taken by the respondents to evict him from the said land. The facts in the writ petition would indicate that the petitioner traces the title over the four acres of land, that was obtained by him pursuant to Ext.P5, to four pattas that were granted by Ext.P1 series, to four different persons, by the Government. In Ext. P1 series of pattas, the land assigned is seen as forming part of Survey No.734 of Vagamon Village. It is stated that in 2002, the petitioner constructed a residential building in the property that was purchased by him vide Ext.P5 sale deed, and immediately thereafter, he was served with a prohibitory order (Ext.P8 order dated 12.06.2003), alleging that the construction was on Government land. Thereafter, on the petitioner filing his reply to the said prohibitory order, the proceedings were not continued against the petitioner. Much later, in 2007, by a notice dated 05.10.2007 issued under Rule 9 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why action to resume the land should not be initiated on the allegation that the petitioner was in occupation of Government land. To the notice so issued to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 reply. It is the case of the petitioner that, thereafter, the matter was not adjudicated after notice to him, but the respondents proceeded to put up a board on the property suggesting that the land in question was Government land. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court through the present writ petition, seeking a declaration that the property purchased by the petitioner vide Ext.P5 deed cannot be treated as Government land, and for a further direction to the respondents, not to interfere with the ownership or possession of the petitioner over the said properties. There is also a prayer seeking to quash the order, if any passed against the petitioner, under the Land Conservancy Act and Rules.

(2.) In a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, there is a mention with regard to a notice dated 05.11.2008, having been served on the petitioner in connection with the allegation that the petitioner had unauthorisedly occupied Government land. Thereafter, it is stated that, an order dated 11.07.2011 was served on the petitioner, through the Village Officer, Vagamon, directing him to vacate the unauthorised occupation within 48 hours. It is further stated that, the land was already resumed to the Government on 08.11.2013 and that the land, and the partially constructed building, stand forfeited to the Government for Government purposes. Along with the counter affidavit, after referring to the notice dated 05.11.2008, supposedly served on the petitioner, what is produced as Ext.R2(d), is a notice dated 05.10.2007, which appears to be the one to which the petitioner had replied by Ext.P9 reply, and not the notice referred to in the counter affidavit of the respondents. The order dated 11.07.2011, stated to have been passed by the respondents, is also produced as Ext.R2(e), along with the counter affidavit of the respondents. A perusal of Ext.R2(e) would indicate that the reference therein is to the notice dated 05.10.2007 served on the petitioner, to which the petitioner had preferred Ext.P9 reply. There is no reference therein to any notice dated 05.11.2008, which is stated in the counter affidavit as having been served on the petitioner subsequently. I also find from a perusal of Ext.R2(e) order that it also refers to a direction dated 07.07.2011 by the District Collector of Idukki and further an instruction received from the District Collector by phone.

(3.) I have heard Sri.Ramesh Babu, the learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Sri.Geen T. Mathew, for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.