P.J.ANTONY Vs. ADDL.THAHASILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both these writ petitions involve a common issue, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the reference to facts and exhibits is from W.P.(C)No.41396/2016.

(2.) The petitioner is stated to be the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of land measuring 16.673 cents in Sy.Nos.160/4 and 174/2 of Rameswaram village in Kochi Taluk. The said extents of land are stated to have been obtained by the petitioner through Document No.2518/95 and Settlement Deed No.2820/2009, respectively. The land covered by both these documents are stated to be lying together within four boundaries and there is no demarcation existing between the said two properties. The petitioners also state that they have constructed buildings on both the aforesaid items of properties and have also obtained numbers for the said building from the Corporation of Cochin. It would appear that pursuant to a complaint filed against the petitioner in the year 2013, the Revenue Divisional Officer found that the petitioner had incidentally encroached into an area of 0.61 Ares (approximately 1.5 cents) of puramboke land which was in the nature of a 'thodu'. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioner against the said finding of the Revenue Divisional Officer did not meet with any success, and the plea of the petitioner was rejected by the District Collector and the Land Revenue Commissioner respectively. In Ext.P7 order of the Land Revenue Commissioner, however, the said authority, while dismissing the revision petition, reserved the liberty of the petitioner to approach the relevant authorities for the purposes of assignment of the puramboke land that was found in his possession and occupation. Acting on the strength of the said liberty reserved in Ext.P7 order, the petitioner preferred Exts.P8 and P9 applications for assignment of the aforesaid extent of 0.61 Ares of land. He, thereafter, approached this Court seeking a stay against dispossession till such time as orders were passed on Exts.P8 and P9 applications for assignment.

(3.) When the matter came up for admission, this Court, by an order dated 30.12.2016, directed that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 order of the Land Revenue Commissioner shall be kept in abeyance till such time as the applications for assignment preferred by the petitioner were considered by the respective authority under the Kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules. The interim orders granted were subsequently extended from time to time and continues to be in force even today. In the meanwhile, W.P.(C)No.9249/2017 was filed before this Court by neighbouring land owners, who seek an implementation of Ext.P7 order of the Land Revenue Commissioner referred above. It is stated that it was on their complaint that proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in 2013 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, which proceedings have since culminated in Ext.P7 order of the Land Revenue Commissioner.