IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 193 of 2011(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MUSLIM RELIEF COMMITTEE (REGD.), PERINGADI, THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SRI.K.K. BASHEER, CHOKLI, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR - 670 001. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY - 670 101. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, THALASSERY - 670 101. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 193 of 2011 Y ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 5th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Charitable Society, which claims ownership of 3 cents of land in Re-survey No.25/15C of Chokli village of Thalassery Taluk. According to the petitioner, on the strength of Exts.P1, P1(a) and P1(b) of 1998, they constructed a three storied building. At that stage, there was an allegation of encroachment into puramboke land. It is stated that, seeking to injunct the petitioner from proceeding with the construction, a stranger had filed O.S.No.288/1990 before the Munsiff Court, Thalassery, the plaint of which is Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, in Ext.P3 written statement filed by the third respondent herein, he had confirmed that the allegation of encroachment was referred to the Tahsildar, Thalassery and that the Taluk Surveyor inspected the land with reference to the revenue records and reported that there was no encroachment. It is stated that W.P.(C) No.193/2011 : 2 : subsequently, the suit was dismissed for default. 2. According to the petitioner, in 2000, notice was issued under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and that Ext.P6 order was passed. Case of the petitioner is that notice was not served on the representative of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner could not appear and contest the matter. It is stated that, irrespective of the above, they filed Ext.P7 appeal before the RDO. The RDO issued Ext.P8 order, rejecting the appeal but, however, reducing the area into 10 sq.m. as against 16.7 sq.m. mentioned in Ext.P6 order of the Tahsildar. It is stated that, against Ext.P8 order, Ext.P9 revision was filed before the third respondent, which was also rejected by Ext.P10 order. Although the petitioner challenged Ext.P10 order before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.21296/2006, that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P11 judgment, relegating the petitioner to file revision. It is stated that accordingly the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Land Revenue Commissioner, which was also dismissed W.P.(C) No.193/2011 : 3 : by Ext.P12 order. It is challenging Exts.P6, P8, P10 and P12, this writ petition is filed. 3. Two contentions have been raised. One is that, before passing Ext.P6, the petitioner was not heard. As far as this contention is concerned, I do not find any merit in this contention for the reason that the petitioner was heard by the appellate authority and revisional authorities, viz., RDO, District Collector and Land Revenue Commissioner. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that any prejudice is caused for the reason that the petitioner was not heard by the Tahsildar before passing Ext.P6. 4. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the finding of encroachment which has been found in the impugned orders is incorrect. This contention is sought to be substantiated by the petitioner by relying the averment in Ext.P3 written statement filed by the defendants in O.S.No.288/1990, wherein it is stated that there was no encroachment by the petitioner. First of all, that W.P.(C) No.193/2011 : 4 : suit was not decided by the Court on merits but, it was dismissed for default. Therefore, the petitioner cannot plead any resjudicata as against the respondents. Secondly, a reading of Ext.P6 order shows that on verification, it was found that the petitioner has encroached in the puramboke land. This finding of the Tahsildar is confirmed by the RDO in Ext.P8 order. Again, Ext.P10 order passed by the District Collector shows that the RDO inspected the land and confirmed the encroachment of the petitioner. The relevant portion of Ext.P10 order reads as under:- “ On going through the argument notes and connected records, it is seen that Revision petitioners Committee (ie, Muslim Relief Committee(Registered), Peringadi has encroached 10 square meter of land in R.S.No.25/15 of Chokli amsom Peringadi desam. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thalassery has inspected the site and found that the Muslim Relief Committee (Registered), Peringadi has encroached the Government land. Further, the land was W.P.(C) No.193/2011 : 5 : measured by the Superintendent of Survey and Land Records, Kannur and confirmed the encroachment. In the light of the above, it is clear that the revision petitioners committee had encroached an extent of 10 square meter of Government land in R.S.No.25/15 of Peringadi desam Chokli Village.” 5. This finding of the lower authorities has been confirmed by the Land Revenue Commissioner. Apart from the aforesaid two contentions, which do not have any substance, petitioner has not placed anything to take a view different from what has been concurrently found by the statutory authorities. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks