CYRIL PRESENTATION Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ,direction or order quashing an order(Ext.E)of the second respondent,the District Collector,Quilon,granting a kuthakapattam lease of Government poramboke land to the third respondent.The second respondent 's order was confirmed by the Board of Revenue in revision under Ext.G dated 4 -9 -1957 and a petition to review the same was dismissed by order Ext.J.

(2.) THE petitioner 's case is that he is the owner of survey No.337/12 in Mararikulam South Village,that the disputed plot of land is one lying between his registered holding and the sea,and that he was in possession of the same for several years.Finding that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the land,the Revenue Department took up a case against him under the Land Conservancy Act and the Village Officer prepared a mahazar(Ext.A)stating that the petitioner had been in unlawful occupation of the land for fifteen years,that there were cocoanut trees planted in the property,and that the third respondent was having a coffee shop in a building there.Thereupon the petitioner applied for kuthakapattom lease of this plot to him.During the course of the enquiry,the Tahsildar,Ambalapuzha,issued a notice to the third respondent also and the latter was made a party to the case under the Land Conservancy Act.The third respondent then made an application that he be given lease of the property.The Tahsildar passed an order(Ext.D)granting the land on kuthakapattam lease to the third respondent who according to him was in possession and was entitled to obtain the land on lease.The petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent who confirmed the findings of the Tahsildar but held that the latter had no jurisdiction to grant the lease.On the materials available,the District Collector passed an order(Ext.E)granting the land on lease to the third respondent.The matter was taken in revision before the Board of Revenue,which confirmed the District Collector 's order.According to the petitioner,he was in continuous possession of the land and the third respondent had no possession.He also denies that the Tahsildar made any local inspection of the property.The petitioner 's case is that the orders granting the land on kuthakapattom lease to the third respondent has to be quashed as the same were passed in violation of the rules made by the Government for grant of lands on kuthakapattam lease and as principles of natural justice were also violated in disposing of the matter.On the formation of the District of Alleppey,which formerly formed part of Quilon,the District Collector of Alleppey,was substituted as the second respondent in place of the District Collector,Quilon.

(3.) BEFORE considering the matter on the merits,I may observe that the objection on the ground of laches is not maintainable,the petitioner having come before this court within three months of the order of the Board of Revenue rejecting his appplication for review of the earlier decision.