Sivanandan vs The District Collector, Palakkad
2021 Latest Caselaw 21597 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
  TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                    WP(C) NO. 19572 OF 2018
PETITIONERS:

          SIVANANDAN
          AGED 55 YEARS
          S/O.CHAMIYAR, AGED 55 YEARS, THARUVAKKODE,
          KALLEKKAD, PALAKKAD.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
          SMT.ANU JACOB
          SRI.K.V.WINSTON



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD
          CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678 001.

    2     THE ADDITIONAL THAHSILDAR
          PALAKKAD, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678 001.

    3     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
          PIRAYIRI VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678019.


OTHER PRESENT:

          SMT. SURYA BINOY- SR. G.P




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 19572 OF 2018
                              2

                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he is the absolute owner

in possession of a property, comprised of 4.15 Ares

in Resurvey No.292/15 of the Pirayiri Village in

Palakkad and that he purchased the same through a

Sale Deed, a copy of which has been marked on record

as Ext.P1. He adds that, subsequent to the purchase,

the transfer of Registry of the property in question

was made in his favour and that he also remitted land

tax thereon uninterruptedly, which is evident from

Ext.P2.

2. The petitioner says that, however, without

verifying any of the applicable facts in its true

perspective, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P3 notice

to him alleging that he is in unauthorized occupation

of the land which is classified a "Government land"

and thus directing him to evict himself forthwith. He

says that since Ext.P3 notice had been issued without

following any procedure under the Land Conservancy

Act or other applicable Statutes, he preferred Ext.P4 WP(C) NO. 19572 OF 2018

explanation, but that the same has not been yet

considered; and consequently prays that the afore

mentioned notice be set aside, as being unlawful and

illegal.

3. The petitioner reiteratingly says that since

the property belongs to him exclusively, as is

evident from Exts.P1 and P2, no action under the Land

Conservancy Act could have been taken against him and

that the confusion appears to have arisen because the

Authorities did not do a proper survey and had

mistakenly assumed his property to be a "Government

land", which it is not really.

4. I have heard Shri.Jacob Sebastian, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Surya Binoy,

learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents.

5. In response to the contentions of Shri.Jacob

Sebastian as recorded above, the learned Senior

Government Pleader, Smt.Surya Binoy argued relying on

a statement filed on record by the 2nd respondent WP(C) NO. 19572 OF 2018

saying that, pursuant to Ext.P3, the petitioner was

heard on 25.06.2013 and that taking note of his

contentions, a letter was given to the Taluk Surveyor

to identify the property and to fix its boundaries.

She submitted that if the petitioner is in unlawful

occupation of "Government land", then the Authorities

are obligated in law to take necessary action under

the Land Conservancy Act and added that, pending the

survey which is now ordered, the petitioner will not

be evicted. She thus prayed that this Court allow the

competent Authorities to complete the survey of the

property based on all relevant and germane inputs and

to allow them to finalise the proceedings against the

petitioner, if it is found so warranted after the

said exercise, in terms of law.

6. I have examined the pleadings on record, as

also the materials available, from the touchstone of

the afore submissions made on behalf of the rival

parties.

7. Prima facie, the petitioner seems to be WP(C) NO. 19572 OF 2018

justified in claiming exclusive rights over the

property in question based on Ext.P2 tax receipt.

However, this is certainly a presumption that can be

rebutted by the competent Authorities, after

following due procedure. If they suspect that the

petitioner is in occupation of "Government land",

certainly necessary action under the Land Conservancy

Act will have to be taken forward, but this can be

done only after the statutory processes under it are

implicitly complied with.

8. Going by the statement filed on behalf of the

2nd respondent, the Taluk Surveyor has been approached

by the Tahsildar to conduct the survey and to

identify and fix the boundaries of the property

claimed by the petitioner, in relation to its

adjacent properties. I am certain that this process

will have to be completed, since it is only after

valid reports and sketches are prepared by the Taluk

Surveyor, can any action be pursued against the

petitioner, particularly when he claims, as I have

already said above, exclusive ownership over the WP(C) NO. 19572 OF 2018

property in question, based on Ext.P2 tax receipt.

Resultantly, I allow this writ petition, with a

direction to the 2nd respondent to ensure that the

survey with respect to the property in question is

completed, adverting to Ext.P1 and other title

documents of the property claimed by the petitioner.

Once the said survey is completed and a report and

sketch obtained, the Tahsildar will hear the

petitioner, after affording him a copy of the same,

taking note of his objections recorded in Ext.P4; and

then take a final decision as to whether any action

under the Land Conservancy Act is to be initiated

against him.

If, through such consideration, any action is

proposed, then the petitioner shall be issued with

appropriate notices under the Land Conservancy Act,

and all necessary statutory procedure followed

thereafter.

Needless to say, all my observations in this

judgment are merely prima facie ones and that any WP(C) NO. 19572 OF 2018

action to be taken against the petitioner shall be

without being in any manner fettered or trammeled by

them.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/2.11 WP(C) NO. 19572 OF 2018

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19572/2018

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NUMBER 2959/2007 OF THE SRO PALAKKAD.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED JANUARY 28, 2017 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED JUNE 10, 2013 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED JUNE 26, 2013 TO EXHIBIT P3.