IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 14613 of 2005(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. M.M.GOPALAN, MADAVANA HOUSE, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA. 2. GOPI, MADAVANA HOUSE, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA. 3. RAMACHADNRAN, MADAVANA HOUSE, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) SRI.P.M.BENZIR SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, ALUVA TALUK, ALUVA. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE TRANVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. CHANDRASEKHARAN, EDIKKATHALAM, KUTTIKATTUKARA P.O. KALAMASSERY. ADDL. 8. ALUVA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,ALUVA. (Addl. R8 is impleaded as per order dated 3/3/2008 in IA.9011/07) R5 BY ADV. NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SC, TDB R7 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHYAM R1 to 4 & 6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI R.LAKSHMINARAYANAN R8 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C)NO.14613 OF 2005 -------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Raman, J. Petitioners are M.M. Gopalan, Gopi and Ramachandran. They are residing in Madavana House, Thottakattukara, Aluva. This writ petition is filed challenging various orders passed by the Revenue Authorities under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act inter alia holding that the properties now in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners are puramboke lands leasing by the Travancore Devaswom Board and ordered eviction. Exts. P4, P5 and P6 are those orders, which are sought to be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari. 2. As regards the 3rd petitioner is concerned, it was fairly submitted that the 3rd petitioner is not pressing the writ petition and he seeks to withdraw the same, since he has already invoked a civil remedy by way of a suit filed before the Munsiff's Court, Aluva as O.S.No.176/05. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ petition as against the 3rd petitioner without prejudice to his right to prosecute the said civil suit. -2- WP(C).No.14613/2005 3. As regards petitioners 1 and 2, after arguing for some time the learned Senior Counsel Sri V. Chithambaresh appearing on their behalf sought leave to follow the same line of action as that of the 3rd petitioner to institute a civil suit before the appropriate court having jurisdiction without prejudice to the contentions raised in this writ petition. This writ petition was filed as early as in 2005. Further proceedings pursuant to the order impugned were virtually stayed by ordering status quo. At this stage of the proceeding, he prays that in order to invoke a civil remedy, the interim order be allowed to continue for a reasonable time, so that he could approach the civil court for necessary interim orders as well in that behalf. 4. We have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Travancore Devaswom Board, the learned Government Pleader Sri R.Lakshminarayanan and also the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 7th respondent. Based on usual complaint whole action was initiated by the Devaswom Board as well as by the Government. 5. It was pointed out by the Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board that this Court, on an earlier petition filed as C.M.P.No.48812/01 in C.M.P.No.2795/98 has passed Ext.P3 order based on which action was taken by them seeking to evict the encroachers from the land and it is not -3- WP(C).No.14613/2005 therefore open for the petitioners now to say that the provisions contained in the Land Conservancy Act shall not be invoked. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State would submit that in similar situations the Apex Court in Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board (2007 (4) ILR 181) had relegated the parties to file a civil suit with a direction to give possession to the Devaswom in the meantime. The 7th respondent on the other hand, would submit that the contention of the petitioners that their private lands cannot stand scrutiny of this Court, since if the land belonged to the Revenue or to the Devaswom, then no private party could deal with the property and cannot confer a better title than what the transferor had. We are not going into the rival submissions made by the parties, in the view we are taking as follows: The scheme of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act would show that in the nature of the summary proceedings to evict encroachers from Government land and by virtue of Section 27 read with Section 50 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act would be made applicable to the land belonged to the Travancore Devaswom as well. However, the petitioners have raised a contention and there is some substance in his favour that -4- WP(C).No.14613/2005 they had in long possession and occupation of the property. According to them, they have purchased this property from a private party. But, no document of title is produced before us. They would contend that they ares bona fide purchasers which itself is a question of fact to be decided based on evidence. However, being a summary proceeding, the Kerala Land Conservancy Act provides a remedy of a civil suit as per Section 20 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, if the aggrieved party has a contention that this is not a Government land. This being the exact contention as is now put forth by the petitioners, according to us, the proper remedy is to file a civil suit. Going to the rival submissions made by the parties and enter a finding, that too, in the absence of any materials produced in this case, will be improper and not feasible. Hence, we think that the request made by the Senior Counsel has to be allowed permitting him to withdraw this writ petition so as to enable the parties to approach the civil court. Since this writ petition was pending in all these years, necessarily the period during which the matter was pending has to be excluded and shall not bar the right of the petitioners to approach the civil court for the reason that they have not approached the civil court within a period of one year from the last order passed by the statutory authority. We also think it is only appropriate at this distance of time, to -5- WP(C).No.14613/2005 direct status quo to be maintained for a period of two months more, within which period the petitioners 1 and 2 may, if they are so advised, approach the civil court having jurisdiction over the matter. It will also be open to the petitioner to seek any interim order, if they are so advised and the matter will be governed thereafter by any orders that may be passed by the civil court. We make it clear that the direction to maintain status quo will be in force only for a period of two months from today and thereafter the matter will be governed by any orders that may be passed by the civil court. Subject to the above conditions, this writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn. No order as to costs. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kcv.