Kerala High Court
Chandy Chandy vs District Collector, Idukki on 1 July, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:48276
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2025/10TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.252 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.12.2015 IN WPC NO.6182 OF 2012
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 CHANDY CHANDY
(DECEASED BY LRS THE 3RD ADDITIONAL PETITIONER)
EDAMALA HOUSE, MOOLAMATTOM P.O.
2 SHINY THOMAS
KADANKAVIL, VETTIMATTOM,
KALAYANTHANI P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT
3 ALEX THOMAS
EDAMALA HOUSE, MOOLAMATTOM P.O.
BY ADV.SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS
BY ADV.SRI.T.K.BABY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI
CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU IDUKKI, PIN 685603
2 THE SUB COLLECTOR
IDUKKI, PAINAVU P.O, PIN 685603
3 THE TAHSILDAR
PEERMEDE, PIN 685531
4 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
THIRUANANTHAPURAM PIN 695001
W.A.Nos.252, 684, 721,
825 & 1051/16 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:48276
5 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REP BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUD BAHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695001
6 ASOK KUMAR SINGH IAS (DELETED)
PRESENTLY WORKING AS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695001
7 VENKITESAPATHY S.IAS(DELETED)
SUB COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, PAINAVU P O, PIN 685603
[RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY
AS PER ORDER DATED 14/11/2024 IN W.A.NO.252/2016]
8 THE PROJECT MANAGER
KSEB IDUKKI AUGMENTATION SCHEME , MOOLAMATTOM,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN 685589
BY SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY SRI.B.PREMOD, STANDING COUNSEL, KSEB
BY ADV.SRI.T.R.RAJAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.684 OF 2016 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.252, 684, 721,
825 & 1051/16 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:48276
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2025/10TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.684 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.12.2015 IN WPC.NO.6182 OF 2012
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/5TH & 8TH RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY(ADMINISTRATION),
VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 004.
2 THE PROJECT MANAGER
THE KSEB IDUKKI AUGMENTATION SCHEME, MOOLAMATTOM,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 589.
BY SRI.B.PREMOD, STANDING COUNSEL, KSEB
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & 1ST TO 4TH & 6TH & 7TH RESPONDENTS:
1 CHANDY CHANDY (DEAD)
AGED 85, S/O.CHIRACKAL PURAYIDOM, ULAPOONI,
KOTTAMALA P.O., NOW RESIDING AT EDAMALA HOUSE,
MOOLAMATTOM P.O., REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER ALEX THOMAS, AGED 50,
EDAMALA HOUSE, MOOLAMATTOM P.O. 685 589.
2 SHINY THOMAS
KADANKADAVIL, VETTIMATTOM, KALAYANTHANI P.O,
IDUKKI DISTRICT -685 588.
3 ALEX THOMAS
AGED 50, EDAMALA HOUSE, MOOLAMATTOM P.O. 685 589.
W.A.Nos.252, 684, 721,
825 & 1051/16 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:48276
4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
IDUKKI CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU, IDUKKI - 685 603.
5 THE SUB COLLECTOR
PAINAVU, IDUKKI - 685 603.
6 THE THAHSILDAR
PEERMADE, PIN. 685 531.
7 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001.
8 ASOK KUMAR SINGH I.A.S.
PRESENTLY WORKING AS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER
AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN.695 001.
9 VENKITASAPATHY S. I.A.S.
SUB COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, PAINAVU PO, PIN. 685 603.
BY SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY ADV.SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS
BY ADV.SRI.T.K.BABY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.252 OF 2016 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.252, 684, 721,
825 & 1051/16 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:48276
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2025/10TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.721 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.12.2015 IN WPC.NO.9243 OF 2012
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695004.
BY SRI.B.PREMOD, STANDING COUNSEL, KSEB
BY SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON, SC, KSEB
BY SRI.SUDHEER GANESH KUMAR R., SC, KSEB
RESPONDENTS/PETIITONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 & 6:
1 AVIRAH
S/O.MATHAI, KOOTTUMKAL HOUSE, ULLUPPONY, VAGAMON,
NOW RESIDING AT KOOTUMKAL HOUSE, PRAVITHANAM.P.O,
BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686651.
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
IDUKKI, CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU, IDUKKI-685603.
3 THE SUB COLLECTOR
IDUKKI,PAINAVU,IDUKKI-685603.
4 THE TAHSILDAR
PEERMADE-685531.
5 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
W.A.Nos.252, 684, 721,
825 & 1051/16 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:48276
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
6 GEORGE
S/O.MATHAI, KOTTUMKAL, KARIMANOOR.P.O,
THODUPUZHA(VIA), IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685581.
BY SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY ADV.SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.252 OF 2016 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.252, 684, 721,
825 & 1051/16 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:48276
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2025/10TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.825 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.12.2015 IN WPC.NO.13360 OF 2013
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY(ADMINISTRATION),
VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
BY SRI.B.PREMOD, STANDING COUNSEL, KSEB
BY ADV.SRI.T.R.RAJAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & 1ST TO 4TH RESPONDENTS:
1 JOSE SEBASTIAN
S/O.P.K.DEVASIA, RESIDING AT PANCHAKUNNEL HOUSE,
PALAI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 575.
2 SIBI SEBASTIAN
S/O.P.K.DEVASIA, RESIDING AT PANCHAKUNNEL HOUSE,
PALAI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 575.
3 ALICE SEBASTIAN
AGED 74 YEARS, W/O.P.K.DEVASIA, RESIDING AT
PANCHAKUNNEL HOUSE, PALAI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686 575.
4 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
W.A.Nos.252, 684, 721,
825 & 1051/16 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:48276
COLLECTORATE, PAINAVU P.O.,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 603.
6 THE SUB COLLECTOR
IDUKKI, CIVIL STATION, KUYILIMALA P.O.,
IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 531.
7 THE TAHSILDAR
PEERUMEDU, TALUK OFFICE, PEERUMEDU P.O.,
IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 531.
BY SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY ADV.SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS
BY ADV.SRI.JOICE GEORGE
BY ADV.SMT.A.K.RANI
BY ADV.SRI.TOM E. JACOB
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.252 OF 2016 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.252, 684, 721,
825 & 1051/16 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:48276
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 20250/10TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.1051 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.12.2015 IN WPC.NO.9243 OF 2012
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
AVIRAH
S/O.MATHAI, KOTTUMKAL HOUSE, ULUPPONY, VAGAMON,
NOW RESIDING AT KOOTUMKAL HOUSE, PIRAVANTHANAM (P.O.),
BHARANGHANAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS
BY ADV.SRI.T.K.BABY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
IDUKKI CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685603.
2 THE SUB COLLECTOR
IDUKKI, PAINAVU P.O., PIN - 685603.
3 THE THASILDAR
PEERMEDE, PIN - 685531.
4 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
5 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
W.A.Nos.252, 684, 721,
825 & 1051/16 :: 10 ::
2025:KER:48276
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUD BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
6 GEORGE
S/O.MATHAI, KOOTUMKAL, KARIMANNOOR P.O.,
THODUPUPUZHA (VIA) 685581.
BY SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY SRI.B.PREMOD, STANDING COUNSEL, KSEB
BY SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON, SC, KSEB
BY ADV.SRI.V.V.SURESH
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.252 OF 2016 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.252, 684, 721,
825 & 1051/16 :: 11 ::
2025:KER:48276
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
These Writ Appeals filed by the writ petitioners in W.P.
(C).Nos.6182 of 2012, 9243 of 2012 and 13360 of 2013, as well as by
the Kerala State Electricity Board [KSEB] that was the respondent and
requisitioning authority in the aforesaid writ petitions, impugn the
common judgment dated 04.12.2015 of a learned Single Judge in the
writ petitions. As the issue arising in all these appeals is the same, they
are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common
judgment.
2. The writ petitioners are persons from whom properties were
acquired by the State for the purposes of the Kuttiyar Diversion Project
of the KSEB, the requisitioning authority. The acquired lands are those
that were originally assigned to the writ petitioners or their
predecessors-in-interest and were covered by pattas issued in respect
thereof. More specifically, the lands belonging to the petitioners in W.P.
(C).No.6182 of 2012 were covered by Patta No.428/1975 [2.46 acres in
Sy.No.932 of Vagamon Village]; the lands belonging to the petitioner in
W.P.(C).No.9243 of 2012 were covered by Patta No.435/1975 [89 cents
W.A.Nos.252, 684, 721,
825 & 1051/16 :: 12 ::
2025:KER:48276
in Sy.No.825 of Vagamon Village] and Patta No.4879/1962 [1.68 acres in
Sy.No.825]; the lands belonging to the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.13360
of 2003 were covered by Patta No.95/1981 [2.25 acres in Sy.No.836 of
Vagamon Village], Patta No.96/1981 [2.70 acres in Sy.No.836 of
Vagamon Village] and Patta No.97/1981 [1.80 acres in Sy.No.836 of
Vagamon Village].
3. The grievance of the writ petitioners was that while their
lands had been taken possession of by the State/KSEB, they were not
paid any compensation for the same despite directions from this Court
in earlier rounds of litigation, to pass an award in respect of the
acquisition of their lands and to disburse the compensation due to
them. It was also pointed out in the writ petitions that when contempt
petitions were filed against the State and the KSEB for not complying
with the earlier directions of this Court, the said respondents fixed the
land value at Rs.12,000/- per cent for dry land and Rs.10,000/- per cent
for wet land [W.P.(C).No.6182 of 2012]; Rs.9000/- per cent for dry land
and Rs.5,000/- per cent for wet land [W.P.(C).No.9243 of 2012]; and
Rs.9000/- per cent for dry land [W.P.(C).No.13360 of 2013], but did not
actually pay any compensation because they had, by then, received a
report from the RDO which suggested that the Pattas held by them had
not been issued after complying with the statutory formalities and that
therefore they were bogus Pattas. The RDO also issued proceedings
W.A.Nos.252, 684, 721,
825 & 1051/16 :: 13 ::
2025:KER:48276
dated 14.02.2012, produced as Ext.P11 in W.P.(C).No.6182 of 2012, by
which, it was decided to pay the petitioners only the value of
improvements effected by them on their land. The Pattas issued in
respect of their lands were cancelled. In the writ petitions, the order
cancelling the Pattas was impugned and directions were sought for
disbursement of compensation for the lands acquired from them.
4. The learned Single Judge, who considered the writ petitions,
found that the cancellation of the Pattas, without affording the writ
petitioners an opportunity of showing cause against such a proposal,
was illegal. The order cancelling the Pattas was therefore set aside,
and the writ petitions were disposed with the following directions:
"i) Petitioners in W.P.C.No.6182/2012 are entitled to land
value at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per cent for dry land and Rs.10,000/-
per cent for wet land.
ii) Petitioner in W.P.C.No.9243/2012 will be entitled for
land value at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per cent for dry land and Rs.5,000/-
per cent for wet land.
iii) Petitioners in W.P.C.No.13360/2013 will be entitled for
land value at Rs.9,000/- per cent for dry land.
(iv) The amount shall be quantified and paid to the writ
petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
(v) Petitioners shall also be entitled for value of
improvements as stated in Ext.P12. This shall also be paid along with
the compensation amount.
(vi) Ext.P11 dated 14/02/202 (W.P.C.No.6182/2012) to the
extent it cancels Patta Nos.428/75, 435/75, 95/81 and 97/81 are hereby
set aside.
(vii) Respondent authorities are free to take fresh
proceedings for cancelling the registry after taking appropriate
W.A.Nos.252, 684, 721,
825 & 1051/16 :: 14 ::
2025:KER:48276
proceedings in terms of Rule 8(3) of the Rules or any other law in force.
It is made clear that any such proceedings shall be taken only after
notice to the petitioners/patta holders and after giving them a fair
opportunity of being heard."
5. While the KSEB has preferred three writ appeals [W.A.Nos.684
of 2016; 721 of 2016 and 825 of 2016] corresponding to the three writ
petitions, the sole apprehension of the KSEB is that if payments are
effected as directed by the learned Single Judge, it would be difficult to
recover the land value if the registry is ultimately found to be bogus in
the fresh determination that is directed by the learned Single Judge.
The stand of the KSEB essentially is that they are ready and willing to
pay the compensation amount to the rightful claimant. In the case of
the writ appeals filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.6182 of 2012 and
W.P.(C).No.9243 of 2012, however, the direction of the learned Single
Judge granting liberty to the State to initiate fresh proceedings under
Rule 8(3) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 [hereinafter
referred to as the "Rules"] is impugned. There is also a prayer for an
enhancement of the market value awarded for the lands acquired from
them.
6. We have heard Sri.Raju K. Mathews, the learned counsel for
the appellants in W.A.Nos.252 of 2016 and 1051 of 2016 and
Sri.B.Premod, the learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB in
W.A.Nos.684 of 2016, 721 of 2016 and 825 of 2016. We have also heard
W.A.Nos.252, 684, 721,
825 & 1051/16 :: 15 ::
2025:KER:48276
Sri.M.H.Hanil Kumar, the learned Special Government Pleader for the
respondent State in all these appeals.
7. The primary issue to be considered in these appeals is the
legality of the directions of the learned Single Judge, granting liberty to
the State to initiate fresh proceedings in terms of Rule 8(3) of the Rules,
for cancellation of the Pattas issued to the writ petitioners/their
predecessors-in-interest, after finding the order cancelling those Pattas
to be bad in law for violation of the principles of natural justice. On a
perusal of the pleadings before us, we find that the steps to cancel the
Pattas in question were taken more than 3 or 4 decades after their
initial issuance. During those years, however, the State Government
had been collecting tax in respect of the lands from the writ
petitioners/their predecessors-in-interest. The State had also notified
the lands in question for acquisition through the issuance of a
notification under Section 4(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. It
was apparent therefore that at no point in time during the said 30/40
years had the State a case that the land did not belong to the writ
petitioners. The question therefore is whether the State can
unilaterally exercise its power to cancel the Pattas in terms of Rule 8(3)
of the Rules at this distance of time, without first approaching a Civil
Court for setting aside the original grant of Patta on the allegation of
fraud in its issuance ? For the reasons that follow, we would think not.
W.A.Nos.252, 684, 721,
825 & 1051/16 :: 16 ::
2025:KER:48276
8. The statutory provisions may first be noticed. Rule 8 of the
Rules reads as follows:
"8. Conditions of assignment on registry.-- [(1) Lands, granted on registry
shall be heritable but alienable for a period of twenty-five years from the date of
registry:
Provided that the assignee may mortgage such lands,-
(a) to the Government or Co-operative Institutions or Tea Board or
the Rubber Board or any other financial institutions recognised
by the Government in this behalf, as security for obtaining loan
for agricultural or land improvement purposes or for growing
tea or rubber; and
(b) to the Government or Co-operative Institutions as security for obtaining
loans for house construction under the Village Housing Project Scheme
or any other housing schemes sponsored by the Government, if such
house is required for the occupation of the assignee or his family.
(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) In the land
assigned on registry as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 shall be heritable and alienable.
(2) The assignee or a member of his family or his successor-in-
interest shall reside in the land if it is granted as house site, or shall personally
cultivate the same if it is granted for cultivation; and such resides or cultivation,
as the case maybe, shall commence effectively within a period of one year, from
the date of receipt of the patta or of the provisional patta in cases where a
provisional patta is issued in the first instance:
Provided that-
(i) In the cases of assignment to military personnel or their dependents
as the case may be, the assignee may cultivate the land by his own
labourer by the labour of any member of his family and with the
occasional assistants, if any of hired labour or servants on wages
payable in cash or in kind but not in crop share;
(ii) the military personnel may apply for land anywhere in the State
irrespective of the State to which they belong; and in the matter of
assignment preference shall be given to persons belong to Kerala;
(iii) the military personal may lease for cultivation purposes the lands
assigned to them whilst they are away on active service.
(3) The registry shall be liable to be cancelled for contravention of
the provisions in sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2). The registry may be cancelled also,
if it found that it was grossly inequitable or was made under a mistake of facts or
owing to misrepresentation of facts or in excess of the limits of the powers
delegated to the assigning authority or that there was an irregularity in the
procedure. In the event of cancellation of the registry, the assignee shall not be
entitled to compensation for any improvements he may have made on the land.
The authority competent to order such cancellation shall be the authority which
granted the registry, or one superior to it;
Provided the no registry of land shall be cancelled without giving the
party or parties affected thereby, a reasonable opportunity of being heard:
Provided further that no assignment of Land shall be cancelled if the
annual family income of the transferee occupant does not exceed Rs.10,000
(Rupees Ten thousand only) and who does not own or possess any landed
property, anywhere in the State:
W.A.Nos.252, 684, 721,
825 & 1051/16 :: 17 ::
2025:KER:48276
Provided also that in the case of a transfer of Land covered by the above
proviso the assignee shall not be eligible for further assignment of Land
anywhere in the State."
It is apparent from a perusal of the Rules that although the Rule does
not specify a period of limitation for exercising the power for
cancellation of the Patta that is already issued, the power must be
exercised within a reasonable time. As regards what that reasonable
time is, we must look to the other provisions of the Act for guidance.
Viewed thus, we find that Rule 8(1) mentions a period of 25 years for
non-alienation of lands and simultaneously provides for a power to
resume the assigned lands if there is a breach of any of the conditions
governing the original assignment. It is through the same provision that
the power to resume lands on discovery of a mistake/fraud etc. is
conferred. We would think therefore that the statutory provision itself
indicates that the monitoring period for the Patta is only 25 years and
that if any action, for cancellation of the Patta for breach of the
conditions under which it was granted, is taken, it has to be taken
within that time. In the instant case, no such action was taken by the
State for almost 30/40 years from the date of issuance of the Patta. That
apart, the conduct of the State in accepting tax in respect of the lands
covered by the Pattas would effectively estop it from contending that it
had no knowledge of the alleged fraudulent acts during all these years.
In fact, after the expiry of 30 years, the writ petitioners would also be
W.A.Nos.252, 684, 721,
825 & 1051/16 :: 18 ::
2025:KER:48276
entitled under law, to defend any action by the State towards
dispossessing them on the plea of adverse possession.
9. It would be useful in this connection to notice the judgment of
a Division Bench of this Court in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. (M/s.)
and Another v. State of Kerals and Others - [2018 (2) KHC 719]
where an attempt at resumption of lands owned by a company, by
invoking the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, was
thwarted by this Court. While examining the scope and extent of the
power of resumption under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, this Court
found as follows at paragraphs 125, 126 and 127:
"125. The sine qua non for initiating a proceeding for eviction of an occupant
from a land, under the KLC Act, is that the land should be either Government
land or puramboke. This is the fundamental, foundational or jurisdictional fact
which must exist for proceeding under the Act. But that is not to say that the
authorised officer under the KLC Act can decide the title or assert title, where
there can be none found, other than by adducing evidence before a proper
forum in a validly instituted proceeding. Especially when, based on registered
documents, payment of tax, established occupation and unhindered
possession, the occupant raises a bonafide claim of title supported by various
documents produced before the SO. If it were otherwise, there need not have
been a saving of the civil courts powers in the context of a dispute raised on
the ownership claimed by the Government. The decisions of the Supreme
Court and this Court placed reliance on by both sides have to be examined in
this context.
126. Thummala Krishna Rao, 1982 KHC 422 : 1982 (2) SCC 134 : AIR 1982 SC
1081 was concerned with three items (groups) of property, alleged to have
been acquired by the Government of the Nizam of Hyderabad for the benefit
of Osmania University, along with larger extents of lands. The University
instituted a suit which was rejected, finding the plaintiff having failed to prove
possession within 12 years before the filing of the suit. Later, at the instance
of the University the Thahsildar took steps for summary eviction under the
Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The resultant order of eviction
passed, after being unsuccessfully challenged before the statutory authorities
was before the High Court. The learned Single Judge held that the questions,
whether the lands were acquired by the Government and had then been
transferred to the University were not questions which could be properly
decided under Article 226. The Division Bench, in appeal, held that summary
proceedings under the Encroachment Act cannot be resorted to, on the facts.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted, with approval, the finding of the
Division Bench that the summary remedy provided by S.7, cannot be availed
W.A.Nos.252, 684, 721,
825 & 1051/16 :: 19 ::
2025:KER:48276
of in cases where complicated questions of title arise for decision "unless
there is an attempted encroachment or encroachment of very recent origin"
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
127. It was so held in Para 8 & 9 of the cited decision:
"8. It seems to us clear from these provisions that the summary remedy for
eviction which is provided for by Section 6 of the Act can be resorted to by the
Government only against persons who are in unauthorised occupation of any
land which is "the property of the Government". In regard to property
described in sub-sections (1) and (2) of S.2, there can be no doubt, difficulty or
dispute as to the title of the Government and, therefore, in respect of such
property, the Government would be free to take recourse to the summary
remedy of eviction provided for in S.6. A person who occupies a part of a
public road, street, bridge, the bed of the sea and the like, is in unauthorised
occupation of property which is declared by Section 2 to be the property of
the Government and, therefore, it is in public interest to evict him
expeditiously, which can only be done by resorting to the summary remedy
provided by the Act. But Section 6(1) which confers the power of summary
eviction on the Government limits that power to cases in which a person is in
unauthorised occupation of a land "for which he is liable to pay assessment
under S.3". S.3, in turn, refers to unauthorised occupation of any land "which
is the property of the Government". If there is a bona fide dispute regarding
the title of the Government to any property, the Government cannot take a
unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belongs to it, and on the
basis of such decision take recourse to the summary remedy provided by S.6
for evicting the person who is in possession of the property under a bona fide
claim or title. In the instant case, there is unquestionably a genuine dispute
between the State Government and the respondents as to whether the three
plots of land were the subject-matter of acquisition proceedings taken by the
then Government of Hyderabad and whether the Osmania University, for
whose benefit the plots are alleged to have been acquired, had lost title to the
property by operation of the law of limitation. The suit filed by the University
was dismissed on the ground of limitation, inter alia, since Nawab Habibuddin
was found to have encroached on the property more than 12 years before the
date of the suit and the University was not in possession of the property at any
time within that period. Having failed in the suit, the University activated the
Government to evict the Nawab and his transferees summarily, which seems
to us impermissible. The respondents have a bona fide claim to litigate and
they cannot be evicted save by the due process of law. The summary remedy
prescribed by Section 6 is not the kind of legal process which is suited to an
adjudication of complicated questions of title. That procedure is, therefore,
not the due process of law for evicting the respondents.
9. The view of the Division Bench that the summary remedy provided for by
Section 6 cannot be resorted to unless the alleged encroachment is of "a very
recent origin", cannot be stretched too far. That was also the view taken by
the learned Single Judge himself in another case which is reported in
Meharunnissa Begum v. State of A.P. which was affirmed by a Division Bench.
It is not the duration, short or long, of encroachment that is conclusive of the
question whether the summary remedy prescribed by the Act can be put into
operation for evicting a person. What is relevant for the decision of that
question is more the nature of the property on which the encroachment is
alleged to have been committed and the consideration whether the claim of
the occupant is bona fide. Facts which raise a bona fide dispute of title
between the Government and the occupant must be adjudicated upon by the
ordinary courts of law. The Government cannot decide such questions
unilaterally in its own favour and evict any person summarily on the basis of
such decision. But duration of occupation is relevant in the sense that a
person who is in occupation of a property openly for an appreciable length of
time can be taken, prima facie, to have a bona fide claim to the property
requiring an impartial adjudication according to the established procedure of
law". Ss.2,6 & 7 of the A.P Encroachment Act are in pari materia with S.3, 11
& 12 of the KLC Act and what is declared in Thummala Krishna Rao, 1982
W.A.Nos.252, 684, 721,
825 & 1051/16 :: 20 ::
2025:KER:48276
KHC 44 : 1982 (2) SCC 134 : AIR 1982 SC 1081 applies squarely to the KLC
Act and the proceedings impugned here."
The Court quoted with approval the following statement of law by Lord
Esher M.R. in The Queen v. Commissioner, 1888 (21) Q.B.D. 313:
"When an inferior Court or tribunal or body, which has to exercise the
power of deciding facts, is first established by Act of Parliament, the
legislature has to consider what powers it will give that tribunal or
body. It may in effect say that, if a certain state of facts exists and is
shown to such tribunal or body before it proceeds to do certain
things, it shall have jurisdiction to do such things, but not otherwise.
There it is not for them conclusively to decide whether that state of
facts exists, and, if they exercise the jurisdiction without its existence,
what they do may be questioned, and it will be held that they have
acted without jurisdiction. But there is another state of things which
may exist. The legislature may intrust the tribunal or body with a
jurisdiction, which includes the jurisdiction to determine whether the
preliminary state of facts exists as well as the jurisdiction, on finding
that it does exist, to proceed further or do something more. When the
legislature are establishing such a tribunal or body with limited
jurisdiction, they also have to consider, whatever jurisdiction they
give them, whether there shall be any appeal from their decision for
otherwise there will be none. In the second of the two cases I have
mentioned it is an erroneous application of the formula to say that the
tribunal cannot give themselves jurisdiction by wrongly deciding
certain facts to exist, because the legislature gave them jurisdiction
to determine all the facts, including the existence of the preliminary
facts on which the further exercise of their jurisdiction depends; and
if they were given jurisdiction so to decide, without any appeal being
given; there is no appeal from such exercise of their jurisdiction."
10. The SLP preferred by the State against the said judgment
was dismissed and hence, the said judgment has attained finality. To
us, the observations extracted above would squarely apply to the facts
of the instant cases to refrain the State from invoking the provisions of
Rule 8(3) of the Rules to cancel the Pattas covering the lands acquired
from the writ petitioners.
W.A.Nos.252, 684, 721,
825 & 1051/16 :: 21 ::
2025:KER:48276
11. As for the prayers of the appellants in W.A.Nos.252 and 1051
of 2016, for enhancement of the land value fixed for the lands, we have
not been shown any material to justify such enhancement. We therefore
see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned
Single Judge to that extent.
12. In the result,
(i) Direction Nos. (i) to (v) in the impugned judgment of the
learned Single Judge are upheld;
(ii) Direction No. (vi) in the impugned judgment of the
learned Single Judge is modified to read as follows:
"Ext.P11 dated 14.02.2012 [W.P.(C).No.6182/2012] to the
extent it cancels Patta Nos.428/1975, 435/1975,
4879/1962, 95/1981, 96/1981 and 97/1981 are hereby set
aside.
(iii) Direction No. (viii) in the impugned judgment of the
learned Single Judge is set aside.
These Writ Appeals are disposed as above.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.M.MANOJ
JUDGE
prp/
