K N SOMASEKHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition is the same writ petitioner who approached this Court in O.P.No.5231 of 1990. The writ petitioner, Sri.Somasekharan, came into occupation of 800 sq.links of land in KDH village in Idukki District as early as in 1978. This land is located 300 meters away from the Munnar Town, on the sides of Munnar-Aluva road. As seen from the Tahsildar's proceedings dated 19.03.1994, the revenue authorities had collected kuthakapattom from the petitioner. He was originally conducting a stationery business. The petitioner was an employee under the Central Government. On the expiry of the term of kuthakapattam, it appears that eviction proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Thereupon the petitioner approached this Court in the aforesaid Original petition in the year 1990 and this Court had directed the petitioner to approach the revenue authorities for assignment of the land. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application for assignment. This was considered in a pattayamela committee which comprised the District Collector, Idukki as well. In the pattayamela, patta was given to around 1300 persons. The petitioner was also given patta.

(2.) The petitioner, based on the patta issued to him on 29.03.1999, obtained building permit from Munnar Panchayath and started construction. At this juncture, the Manager of the State Bank of Travancore raised a complaint before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order and removed the building materials from the site. It is apparent that such an order was passed on the premise that the construction was in a 'public thodu' and not in a land. The Revenue Divisional Officer seized the building materials from the site on the premise that the petitioner had blocked the water channel (drainage). Against that order, the petitioner approached this Court in O.P.No.12205 of 200 This Court heavily criticized the act of the Revenue Divisional Officer and observed that, that was an unauthorised act and was not permitted by law and such an order could not have been passed, without following the procedure. It was further ordered that the building materials seized from the petitioner should be returned forthwith to the petitioner at the cost of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Thereafter the same officer initiated proceedings for cancellation of patta. He found that patta was issued by misrepresentation of facts and as a result of collusion between the petitioner and the officials. Accordingly ordered cancellation of patta.

(3.) It is pertinent to refer the findings entered by the Revenue Divisional Officer while ordering cancellation of patta. The following are the findings: