[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
P.Ganeshan vs The State Of Kerala on 18 December, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
WP(C)No.39623 of 2018 2025:KER:97145
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 39623 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
P.GANESHAN,AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. SUBRAMANNYAM, BUILDING NO. X-726, LAKSHAM COLONY,
MUNNAR 685 612
BY ADVS.
SMT.A.A.SHIBI
SMT.REENA ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 001
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,IDUKKI DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE,
KUYILIMALA, PAINAVU P.O., IDDUKI 685 603
3 THE TAHSILDAR,THALUK OFFICE, DEVIKULAM 685 613
4 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,SPECIAL REVENUE OFFICE, MUNNAR 685
612
5 ASSISTANT ENGINEER,PWD BUILDING SECTION, MUNNAR 685
612.
6 SECRETARY,MUNNAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MUNNAR, IDUKKI
DISTRICT, 685 612
2
WP(C)No.39623 of 2018 2025:KER:97145
7 VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, MUNNAR 685 612
8 ADDL.R8.KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATION CO.(P)LTD.,
KDHP HOUSE, MUNNAR, IDUKKI - 685612.
9 ADDL.R9. TATA FINLAY PVT.LTD., (DELETED)
GENERAL HOSPITAL ROAD, NULLATANNI, MUNNAR, IDUKKI -
685612. (ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 8 AND 9 IMPLEADED AS
PER ORDER DATED 08.07.2019 IN IA NO.1/2019 IN WP(C)
39623/2018 AND ADDL. R9 IS DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED
28/10/2024 IN I.A 1/2024 IN WP(C)39623/2018)
BY ADVS.
SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN, ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL
SHRI.ARUN THOMAS, SC, MUNNAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT
SHRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS
SHRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL
SHRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS
SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
SRI.ISAAC THOMAS
SRI.P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM
SHRI.JOHN VITHAYATHIL
SRI. JAFFARKHAN Y., SR. GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2025,
THE COURT ON 18.12.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
WP(C)No.39623 of 2018 2025:KER:97145
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The petitioner, who is a resident of Laksham Colony in KDH
village of Munnar, filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading
to Exts.P9, P10, P11 and P15 and quash the same so far as
it is illegal and without considering the absolute right of the
petitioner over his property;
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the 4th respondent to consider
Ext.P13 and pass orders on it without delay;
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the 7th respondent to consider
Ext.P14 and pass orders on it without delay".
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the
petitioner is the owner in possession and enjoyment of 1.21 Ares
(3 cents) of land along with a commercial building bearing Door
No. X-726, comprised in Sy No.62/28A of KDH Village. Before
1998, the above-mentioned land and building were under the
possession and enjoyment of P.M. Rajamony, who had purchased
the same from M/s Tata Finlay Ltd. vide sale deed No.625/82 of
S.R.O. Devikulam. The land was a parcel of land out of which
WP(C)No.39623 of 2018 2025:KER:97145
19.40 hectares were held by Tata Finlay under the Land Board
Award of 1974 and the transfer deed of 381/1977 was executed
between Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company and M/s Tata
Finlay Company. The petitioner has paid basic tax on the property
till 2016-2017. The Munnar Panchayat had assessed building tax
for the building, and the petitioner has paid building tax till 2018.
The building situated on the land was damaged, and the petitioner
has started renovation of the building. Petitioner was of the bona
fide belief that no renovation permit was required for the
renovation of an existing building to which tax had already been
paid. It was during the renovation work that the petitioner came
to know that a renovation permit is required for the renovation of
the building. The petitioner then submitted an application for a
renovation permit before the 6th respondent, and the 6th
respondent directed the petitioner to apply for a No Objection
Certificate before the Revenue Divisional Officer Devikulam, and
assured that after getting the NOC renovation permit will be
issued. In pursuance of the direction of the 6th respondent, the
petitioner had approached the office of the Revenue Divisional
Officer with an application for NOC. While the matter stood so, the
WP(C)No.39623 of 2018 2025:KER:97145
4th respondent issued Ext.P9 notice under the Kannan Devan Hills
(Resumption of Land) Act, 1971 ('KDH Act' for short), calling upon
the petitioner to produce all documents pertaining to the land
within two days, failing which it was intimated that steps would
be taken to evict him summarily. The petitioner has sent a reply
to Ext.P9 notice on 04.12.2018 along with all documents relating
to his property. On 23.10.2018, the 5th respondent affixed notice
No.EV/93 dated 23.10.2018 in front of the building of the
petitioner alleging that the petitioner has encroached the PWD
land and constructed a building, and hence the action of the
petitioner is illegal. On 04.12.2018, the petitioner received a
communication from the 6th respondent stating that the
panchayath has received a complaint that the petitioner has done
illegal construction, and on enquiry, it is confirmed as correct, and
the petitioner is required to remove the illegal construction. It was
without considering the title of the petitioner over the property,
the respondents categorised him as an encroacher and issued an
eviction notice. Hence, the petitioner filed the writ petition.
3. The respondents 3 and 4 filed a counter affidavit dated
15.02.2019 opposing the relief sought in the writ petition and
WP(C)No.39623 of 2018 2025:KER:97145
producing therewith Exts.R4(a) to R4(d) documents. To that
counter affidavit, the petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated
14.01.2025.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel
for the Munnar Grama Panchayat for the 6th respondent and the
learned counsel for the additional 8th respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner obtained the property in question from M/s Tata
Finlay Ltd. by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed No.845 of 1998 registered
at S.R.O., Devikulam. By Ext. P3 judgment of the Munsiff Court,
Devikulam, in O.S.No.165 of 1999 and in Ext.P4 judgment in A.S.
No.21 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court Thodupuzha, the title
of the petitioner over the property is confirmed. Though the issue
was taken up before this Court in R.S.A. No.1 of 2006, by Ext.P5
judgment, this Court upheld the findings in Exts.P3 and P4
judgments. The petitioner had paid basic tax, and evidencing the
same produced Ext.P6 tax receipt. The petitioner approached for
a renovation permit for the building occupied by him when its roof
was damaged. Since there was a delay in obtaining the permit,
WP(C)No.39623 of 2018 2025:KER:97145
the petitioner started the renovation of the building. It is
thereafter he received Ext.P10 prohibition order from the 7 th
respondent. The learned counsel vehemently submitted that, as
per Section 6(1) of the KDH Act, the Collector shall cause the
boundaries of each parcel of land, the possession of which has
vested in the Government under sub-section (1) of Section 3, to
be demarcated. As per Section 6(2) of the KDH Act, as soon as
the completion of the demarcation as stipulated in Section 6(1),
the Collector shall publish a notification prescribing the extent,
boundaries and other particulars as may be prescribed of such
land. The learned counsel submitted that in Ext.P12 list of land
vested with the Government, the survey number of the property
of the petitioner is not included. In such circumstances, the
impugned orders under challenge in this writ petition cannot
sustain as they were passed under the premise that the property
is vested with the Government under Section 3(1) of the KDH Act.
The learned counsel further submitted that the land in question is
exempted from vesting as per Section 3(2) of the KDH Act.
6. The learned Senior Government Pleader argued that as
per Ext.R4(a) basic tax register, the extent of property covered in
WP(C)No.39623 of 2018 2025:KER:97145
Survey No.62/28A of KDH village is 60.87 acres and out of the
said extent, 8.25 acres is under the possession of the Public Works
Department even prior to the enactment of the KDH Act. After the
notification under Section 6(2) of the KDH Act, a subdivision was
effected in survey No.62/28A by adding a new subdivision as
62/28A-1. Since the parent survey number is 62/28A, the
petitioner cannot claim exclusion of the land from the operation
of the KDH Act, merely relying on Ext.P12 document. By pointing
out Ext.P6 receipt, the learned Senior Government Pleader
submitted that it is in respect of the land in KDH village that the
special thandaper was assigned, and hence it is clear that the land
is one leased out to the additional 8th respondent. The learned
Senior Government Pleader would argue that under the provisions
of the KDH Act, the subject property is vested with the
Government, and it was leased out to the additional 8 th
respondent only for the purpose of agriculture. After considering
the requirements of the Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company,
the Land Board restored the entire land covered in Survey
No.62/28A-1 to the additional 8th respondent. Ext.R4(c)
notification published by the District Collector under Section 6(2)
WP(C)No.39623 of 2018 2025:KER:97145
of the KDH Act on 15.02.1977 clearly points out the aforesaid
facts regarding the restoration of property. Moreover, the lessee
has no right to sell the property, which was restored under Section
4(4) of the KDH Act.
7. The learned counsel for the additional 8th respondent
would submit that the right of the additional 8th respondent to
alienate the property restored to it by the Land Board is evident
from the judgment of this Court dated 30.06.2005 in W.A.No.224
of 2001.
8. The petitioner claims title over the land in question on
the basis of Ext.P1 sale deed No.845 of 1998 registered at S.R.O.,
Devikulam. Admittedly, the land covered in Ext.P1 is the portion
of the land restored to the additional 8th respondent by the Land
Board on considering its application under Section 4 of the KDH
Act. Though the learned counsel for the additional 8th respondent
relied on the judgment dated 30.06.2005 of this Court in W.A.No.
224 of 2001 to contend that the right of the company to alienate
the land is established by the said judgment, while going through
the aforesaid judgment, we notice that the issue considered in
that writ appeal pertained to unauthorised constructions carried
WP(C)No.39623 of 2018 2025:KER:97145
out by the appellant therein on the river bank. In that judgment,
the Division Bench of this Court considered only the factual matrix
of that particular case, and this Court did not give any finding
regarding the right of the additional 8th respondent to alienate the
property. The division Bench observed in that judgment that this
Court is not proposing to go into the disputed questions of law
and facts raised in that case. In such circumstances, the 8 th
respondent cannot rely on the judgment in W.A.No.224 of 2021
to claim that the right of the additional 8th respondent to alienate
the property restored to it by the Land Board under Section 4 of
the KDH Act is established by the said judgment.
9. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the KDH Act, based on which the
arguments are addressed by the parties to this writ petition, read
thus:
"3. Vesting of possession of certain lands.
(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for
the time being in force, or in any contract or other
document, but subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2)
and (3), with effect on and from the appointed day, the
possession of all lands situate in the Kannan Devan Hills
village in the Devikulam taluk of the Kottayam district shall
stand transferred to and vest in the Government free from
WP(C)No.39623 of 2018 2025:KER:97145
all encumbrances, and the right, title and interest of the
lessees and all other persons, including rights of
mortgagees and holders of encumbrances, in respect of
such lands, shall stand extinguished.
(2)Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply in
respect of-
(a)plantations, other than plantations belonging to
trespassers ;
(b) buildings, other than buildings belonging to trespassers,
and lands appurtenant to, and necessary for the convenient
enjoyment or use of, such buildings;
(c) play-grounds and burial and burning grounds; and
(d) lands in the possession of the Central Government or
any State Government or the Kerala State Electricity Board.
(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply in
respect of so much extent of land held by a lessee under his
personal cultivation as is within the ceiling limit applicable
to him under any law for the time being in force or any
building or structure standing thereon or appurtenant
thereto".
4. Restoration of possession of lands in certain
cases.
(1) Where the person in possession of a plantation
considers that any land, the possession of which has
vested in the Govern-ment under sub-section (1) of
section 3,--
(a) is necessary for any purpose ancillary to the
cultivation of plantation crops in such plantation or
WP(C)No.39623 of 2018 2025:KER:97145
for the preparation of the same for the market; or
(b) being agricultural land interspersed within the
boundaries of the area cultivated with plantation
crops, is necessary for the protection and efficient
management of such cultivation; or
(c) is necessary for the preservation of an existing
plantation, he may, within sixty days from the date
of publication of this Act in the Gazette, apply to the
Land Board for the restoration of possession of such
land.
(2) An application under sub-section (1) shall be in
such form as may be prescribed.
(3) On receipt of an application under sub-section
(1), the Land Board shall, after giving the applicant
an oppor-tunity of being heard and after such inquiry
as it deems necessary, by order determine the extent
of land necessary for the purpose or purposes
specified in the application, and such order shall be
final.
(4) As soon as may be after determining the extent
of land necessary for the purpose or purposes
specified in the application under sub-section (1), the
Land Board shall cause such land to be demarcated
and put the applicant in posses-sion of such land.
(5) Any person put in possession of any land under
sub-section (4) shall be entitled to possess that land
on the same terms and subject to the same
conditions on or subject to which he was holding such
WP(C)No.39623 of 2018 2025:KER:97145
land immediately before the appointed day".
xxxx xxxx xxxx
"6. Demarcation of boundaries. - (1) As soon as
may be after the appointed day, the Collector shall
cause the boundaries of each parcel of land, the
possession of which has vested in the Government
under sub-section (1) of section 3, to be demarcated.
(2) As soon as may be after the demarcation of the
boundaries of a parcel of land under sub-section (1),
the Collector shall publish a notification in such
manner as may be prescribed specifying the extent,
identity and such other particulars as may be
prescribed of such land.
(3) Where the possession of a portion of a parcel of
land is restored under section 4, or the alteration of
the boundaries of a parcel of land is necessary
consequent on the order of the Land Board under
section 7, the Collector shall cause the boundaries of
the remaining portion of such parcel of land or such
parcel of land, as the case may be, to be re-
demarcated and shall also publish a notification of
such re-demarcation under sub-section (2)".
(underline supplied)
10. The land in question in the instant case is admittedly
situated within the area wherein the KDH Act is notified as
applicable by the Government. It is restored to the additional 8th
respondent by the Land Board. The reading of the above extracted
WP(C)No.39623 of 2018 2025:KER:97145
provisions make it clear that only a land vested with the
Government under section 3(1) of the KDH Act can be restored
under Section 4 of the said Act, for the limited purposes
mentioned in that Section. Therefore, the contention of the
petitioner that the land is exempted from vesting under Section 3
(1) of the KDH Act, and it falls under the category of exempted
land under Section 3(2) of the said Act, cannot be accepted.
11. While coming to the contention of the petitioner
regarding non inclusion of the survey number of the petitioner
property in Ext.P12 list of land vested with the Government
published in accordance with section 6(2) of the KDH Act, it is
relevant to note that this Court in Rajendran S. v. State of
Kerala [2025 KHC Online 1181] considered the question of
omission of certain survey number from the subsequent
demarcation notification issued by the Government and held that
all lands in Kannan Devan Hills Village automatically vested with
the Government on 21.01.1971 under the KDH Act, except those
specifically exempted, and omission of survey numbers from the
subsequent demarcation notification does not take away this
automatic vesting.
WP(C)No.39623 of 2018 2025:KER:97145
12. It is also pertinent to note that by the order dated
21.01.2010 in W.P.(C)No.1801 of 2010, this Court prohibited
construction activity in the Munnar area without a No Objection
Certificate from the revenue department and from the Grama
Panchayat. In the instant case, the petitioner had started the
construction without obtaining a No Objection Certificate or
permission from the Grama Panchayat. In such circumstances, we
find no illegality in Ext.P9 notice issued by the Tahsildar, and
Ext.P10 stop memo issued by the Village Officer, to the petitioner.
From the pleadings and materials, we notice that there is a further
allegation against the petitioner by the authorities that he carried
out the construction by encroaching on the PWD land and without
obtaining permission from the Panchayat. Ext.P11 notice issued
by the 5th respondent Assistant Engineer of PWD, and Ext.P15
notice issued by the 6th respondent secretary of the Munnar
Grama Panchayat, which are under challenge in this writ petition,
are based on the said allegation. Now, Ext.P14 fresh application
for NOC submitted by the petitioner is pending before the 7 th
respondent Village Officer, Munnar. Considering all these facts and
circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the District
WP(C)No.39623 of 2018 2025:KER:97145
Collector, Idukki, to conduct an enquiry in the matter and pass
appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after affording the
petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of without
expressing anything on the legal and factual contentions raised
by the parties, directing the petitioner to produce all relevant
documents relied by him, before the 2nd respondent District
Collector, Idukki, within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment, and on such production, the 2 nd respondent
District Collector, Idukki shall conduct necessary enquiry
regarding genuineness of the title of the petitioner over the
property in question, and pass appropriate orders regarding the
same, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of the documents from the
petitioner. Based on the findings of the 2nd respondent District
Collector, the 7th respondent Village Officer, Munnar, shall pass
necessary orders in Ext.P14 application dated 03.12.2018
submitted by the petitioner for No Objection Certificate. Similarly,
the further steps to be taken in Ext.P15 notice issued by the 6 th
WP(C)No.39623 of 2018 2025:KER:97145
respondent secretary of the Munnar Grama Panchayat shall also
be decided based on the findings of the 2nd respondent District
Collector, Idukki, as directed above.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
WP(C)No.39623 of 2018 2025:KER:97145
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 39623 OF 2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 845 OF 1998
REGISTERED AT DEVIKULAM SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE,
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 625 OF 1982 DATED
1.2.1982 REGISTERED AT DEVIKULAM SUB
REGISTRAR OFFICE
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O S. NO. 165/99
PRONOUNCED BY MUNSIFF COURT DEVIKULAM
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN A.S. NO. 21/2003
BEFORE SUB COURT, THODUPUZHA
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN R.S.A. NO. 1/2003
ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
13.7.2016 ISSUED BY KDH VILLAGE
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED
4.5.2018 ISSUED BY MUNNAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 15.5.2018 GIVEN BY
THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO. 253/18 DATED NIL
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF PROHIBITION ORDER DATED
15.9.2018 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO. EV/93 DATED
23.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF NOTIFICATION
WHICH CONTAINS THE LIST OF LAND WHICH IS
VESTED WITH THE GOVERNMENT UNDER KDH ACT
EXHIBIT P12(A) TYPED COPY OF EXHIBIT P12
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 3.12.2018 TO EXHIBIT
P9 NOTICE SENT TO 4TH RESPONDENT WITHOUT
EXHIBITS ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPT
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR NOC DATED
3.12.2018 WITHOUT EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO. 6576/18 DATED
4.12.2018 SENT BY 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER
WP(C)No.39623 of 2018 2025:KER:97145
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF REPLY TO EXHIBIT P15 DATED
4.12.2018 ALONG WITH ITS POSTAL RECEIPT
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R4(A) - TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF BTR
REGISTER
EXHIBIT R4(B) - TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE ASSET
REGISTER OF THE PWD
EXHIBIT R4(C) - TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR UNDER SECTION
6(2) OF THE KDH ACT, 1971 DATED 15.2.1977
EXHIBIT R4(D) - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, MUNNAR DATED 22.12.2018
