[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
P.T Ramesh vs District Collector on 12 January, 2026
W.P.(C) No.32450 of 2022 1
2026:KER:1824
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 22ND POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 32450 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
P.T RAMESH, AGED 60 YEARS
S/O P.T RAGHAVAN, 'SAROJ', KUTHIRAVATTAM P.O
KOTTOOLI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN -
673016
BY ADVS. SHRI.NIRMAL.S
SMT.VEENA HARI,SMT.RIA ELIZABETH JOSEPH
SMT.IRENE ELZA SOJI,KUM. K. REMIYA RAMACHANDRAN
SHRI.VARUN MURALEEDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
2 COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE
LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERATE, REVENUE COMPLEX,
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695033
3 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001
4 TAHSILDAR, LAND REVENUE, CIVIL STATION,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KASABA VILLAGE OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001
GP SMT.NIMMY JOHNSON
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.32450 of 2022 2
2026:KER:1824
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
.................................................................
W.P.(C) No.32450 of 2022
.................................................................
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P3 and
P6 notices issued under the Land Conservancy Act, 1957.
2. As per the averment in the writ petition, petitioner is a
co-owner of the property comprised in survey No.58/2 of Kasaba amsom,
Kozhikode Taluk, in which a saw mill is functioning. Petitioner submits
that during 2006 proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act, 1975
were initiated against the petitioner and other timber merchants as an off
shoot of the proceedings initiated by the State Government against
encroachments in Munnar. Some of the merchants had approached this
Court and the writ petitions were disposed of as per Ext.P2 judgment.
The benefit of Ext.P2 judgment was extended to other merchants also as
per Ext.P7. Petitioner submits that he is also entitled for a similar
treatment that was extended to others as per Exts.P2 and P7. Without
doing so Exts.P3 and P6 notices have been issued as per the provisions
of the Land Conservancy Act, 1975.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.
4. When the matter came up for consideration on
2026:KER:1824
19.10.2022 this Court has passed an order directing the respondents to
maintain status quo. In Ext.P2 judgment this Court has considered a
similar issue and passed the following order:
"3. There are documents placed before this Court to
show that at least some of them have paid lease in past. If there
was any perpetual lease, no proceedings can be initiated under
the Land Conservancy Act. If there is no perpetual lease, it is
necessary to find out whether there was any lease in the past. If
there was any lease in the past, and the petitioners are willing to
renew the lease, they should be given an opportunity to renew
the lease in accordance with the rules under the Assignment of
Land Within Municipal and Corporation Area Rules, 1995.
However, if there was no lease in the past, there is no difficulty
in evicting such persons by invoking provisions under the Land
Conservancy Act. Fact finding is necessary to ascertain the
nature of interest or right claimed by the petitioners. Petitioners
also claim that some of them also have jenmam right on certain
portions of the area, which is now sought to be evicted through
the Land Conservancy Act. The issue in this case can be
resolved only if a fact finding is made by the Government. In
view of the fact that the area is of a commercial nature,
Government can very well take a decision with regard to the
nature of land claimed by the petitioners.
For consideration of Government, following aspects
shall be taken into the account:
(a) Whether any of the petitioners are in possession
of the land based on a perpetual lease? If not, on lease, in such
event, the Government shall give an opportunity to allow the
petitioners to apply for renewal of lease. In that event, it is for the
Government to consider whether the lease could be renewed or
not.
(b) In case Government finds that there was no
2026:KER:1824
lease, Government can order eviction of such persons, who are
in occupation of the land. Before the Government takes a
decision in the matter, the Government shall call for a report
from the District Collector or any person authorised by him with
regard to the nature of land held by each of the petitioners.
Identification of the land shall be caused by the Revenue
Authority after notice to the petitioners. In that process,
petitioners are free to raise objection with regard to identification
of the land and petitioners are also given an opportunity to
produce title deeds for identification of land. It is appropriate if
the land is identified with the assistance of Taluk Surveyor in the
presence of petitioners.
(c) In the event the Government declines renewal of
lease or the Government finds that petitioners have no perpetual
lease, the Government is free to order eviction of the petitioners
in accordance with the law.
4. This Court had not interfered with the land survey
proceedings initiated. However, this will be subject to the orders
to be passed by the Government as above. The entire exercise
in this regard shall be done within a period of six months. The
Government shall also consider the request of the petitioners to
remove jhandas.
It is made clear that directions as above, are
confined to the petitioners alone and the District Collector is free
to proceed with the action already initiated to evict any other
encroachers.
Till the exercise as above is completed, the interim
order in W.P.(C).No.37333 of 2017 and W.P.(C).No.14291 of
2018 will be in force."
By Ext.P7 judgment a similar benefit was extended to other merchants
also. It is also directed that status quo shall be maintained till the
2026:KER:1824
proceedings are culminated as directed in Exts.P2 and P7.
Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of
the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is also entitled for a similar
relief. It is seen that in Exts.P2 and P7 judgments a direction is issued to
the Government to consider the claim raised by the writ petitioners
therein individually with regard to the interest they have in the land.
Therefore, the Government shall issue notice to the petitioner strictly in
compliance with the directions in Exts.P2 and P7 judgments and
consider the claim raised by the petitioner with regard to the interest the
petitioner has in the subject land and take a final decision in the matter,
after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The above
direction shall be complied within an outer limit of four months from the
date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Till a decision is taken as
directed above, the status quo shall be maintained with regard to the
possession of the land.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
cks
2026:KER:1824
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 32450 OF 2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED
EVIDENCING THE ASSIGNMENT OF PROPERTY
IN FAVOUR OF SRI.P.T RAGHAVAN
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
WPC.37333/2017 DATED 19/06/2019
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
20/12/2019
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 13/9/2017
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN EXPLANATION
GIVEN BY RAMANUJAN P.T IN REF NO. G4-
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER FORM C (RULE 11) DATED
16/09/2020 OF THE KERALA LAND
CONSERVANCY ACT ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
WPC.1825/2020 DATED 24/01/2020
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO FILED BY THE
GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN COC.2130/2021
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/09/2022
Exhibit P10 THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/09/2022
