IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 OP.No. 17955 of 1998(K) ----------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.SIVANANDAN, KANJIRATHUPARAMBU, THONDANKULANGARA, AVALOOKUNNU.P.O. ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.T.S.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI SRI.T.R.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE INVESTIGATION, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 5. TAHSILDAR, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. 6. MR.MATHEW JOSEPH, S/o.OUSEPH, RESIDING AT THYKKATTUSERRY P.O. CHERTHALA. 7. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, RE-SURVEY, CHENGANNUR. 8. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, TRIVANDRUM BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.No.17955/1998 2 ORDER ON C.M.P.No.31647/1998 IN O.P.No.17955/1998 DISMISSED. 28.3.2008 Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN,JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.B-7-21/67 DTD 6.3.1975. EXT.P2: COPY OF LETTER DTD 1.8.75 BEARING NO.B7-21/67/MISC. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.C1.39710/75 DTD 3.12.76. EXT.P4: COPY OF COMPLAINT DT.16.6.94 ADDRESSED TO THE REVENUE SECRETARY. EXT.P5: COPY OF STATEMENT DTD.24.8.94 IN O.P.NO.11368/94. EXT.P6: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 30.8.94 IN O.P.No.11368/94-C ON THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P7: COPY OF REPLY DTD.26.8.94 BEARING NO.G3/1315/94 L.DIS. OF THE RESERVE OFFICER, CHENGANNUR. EXT.P8: COPY OF COLLECTORATE NOTICE NO.B3-38900/95 DT.26.7.95. EXT.P9: COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.D.DIS.28987/94/LR(B) 4 DTD 10.8.95 OF THE BOARD OF REVENUE (LR) Thiruvananthapuram. EXT.P10: COPY OF LETTER NO.63927/S2/94/REVENUE DTD.28.2.96 OF THE GOVT.COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY. EXT.P11: COPY OF LETTER NO.B3-21957/96 DTD.11.4.96 OF THE COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. EXT.P12: COPY OF NEWS ITEMS IN THE DEEPIKA DAILY DTD.18.7.96. EXT.P13: COPY OF NEWS ITEMS IN APPEARED IN THE DEEPIKA DAILY DTD.17.7.96. EXT.P14: COPY OF LETTER DATED 20.7.96 OF THE PETITIONER. O.P.No.17955/1998 3 EXT.P15: COPY OF SALE DEED NO.426/94 DTD. 7.2.1994. EXT.P16: COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED IN OS.NO.445/96 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT OF ALAPPUZHA. EXT.P17: COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DTD.28.2.1997 IN O.P.No.3269/96 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P18: COPY OF LETTER NO.NS-54555/95 DT.12/95 OF COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. EXT.P19: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 1.8.96 IN O.P.No.7023/96 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P20: COPY OF RESP;ITOPM DT.13.4.97 OF BLOCK PANCHAYATH, ARAYAD. EXT.P21: COPY OF RESOLUTION DTD 4.10.97 OF MANNANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE. EXT.P22: COPY OF REGISTERED LETTER TO THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE DTD.18.4.1996 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P23: COPY OF PETITION DTD.18.7.96 BEFORE THE CHIEF ENGINEER AND ADMINISTRATION AND EX.OFFICIO ADDL.SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVNANDRUM, ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P24: COPY OF LETTER SENT BY REGISTERED POST BY THE PETITITIONER TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, KERALA POLICE- VIGILANCE. EXT.P25: COPY OF PETITION DTD.27.1.98 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE TAHSILDAR, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK. EXT.P26: COPY OF PETITION DTD.20.1.1998 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE ASST. DIRECTOR, RESURVEY, CHENGANNOOR. EXT.P27: COPY OF PETITION DATED 2.2.1998 OF THE PETIITONER TO THE TAHSILDAR, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK. EXT.P28: COPY OF NOTICE NO.50461/A2/97/REVENUE DTD.14.5.98 REVENUE (A) DEPARTMENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P29: COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD.6.7.98 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. EXT.P30: COPY OF COMMISSION ORDER AND PROPERLY SURVEYED AND DEMARCATED SKETCH. O.P.No.17955/1998 4 EXT.P31: COPY OF LETTER DATED 28.2.2004 OF GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ALAPPUZHA. EXT.P32: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.6.2001 IN IA.2374/01 IN O.S.841/96. EXT.P33: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.(C).No.35050/2005 DATED 16.12.2005. EXT.P34: COPY PF THE ITEM No.4 AND 5 OF THE LIST OF NEAREST PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P35: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.1.2005 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P36: COPY OF THE SCHEDULE IN SY.No.353/6/4. EXT.P37: COPY OF FORM No.50 OF FIELD REGISTER. EXT.P38: COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS NO.T.P.5205 PRODUCED AS DIRECTED BY ALAPPUZHA MUNSIFF COURT. EXT.P39: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ASSIGNMENT OF LAND DT. 19.3.94 IN SY.No.353/6/4. EXT.P40: COPY OF NOTICE DT.6.12.2006 ISSUED BY THE HON; HIGH COURT FOR APPEARANCE ON 18.12.2006. EXT.P41: COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.No.3141/2001 IN O.S.No.841/96 OF PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA DTD 21.7.2001. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a): COPY OF THE SKETCH. EXT.R4(b): COPY OF THE MAHAZAR. EXT.R6(a): COPY OF THE LIST OF THE 28 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R6(b): COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 11.2.1994. ANNEXURE-A: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.No.3269/96 DATED 12.6.1997. ANNEXURE-B: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.9.1997. ANNEXURE R4(a): COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF BASIC TAX REGISTER OF OLD SY.NO.353/6/4. O.P.No.17955/1998 5 ANNEXURE R4(b): COPY OF EXTRACT OF THANDAPER REGISTER IN OLD SY.No.353/6 IN TP.NO.5967. ANNEXURE R4(c): COPY OF EXTRACT OF THANDAPPER REGISTER IN OLD SY.No.353/6 IN TP.No.2110. ANNEXURE R4(d): COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF TAX REGISTER SHOWING THE PRESENT RE-SY NO.68/6 OF KOMALAPURAM VILLAGE. ANNEXURE R4(e): COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF RE-SURVEY RECORDS DULY SIGNED BY ASST.DIRECTOR, SURVEY & LAND RECORDS, CHENGANNUR. ANNEXURE R4(f): COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF BASIC TAX REGISTER REGARDING RE-SY No.68/6. ANNEXURE R4(g): COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.1.3.75 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER U/S.49. ANNEXURE.R4(h): COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.1.8.75 ISSUED TO THE PETITIOENR. ANNEXURE R4(i): COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.3.1.76 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDNET. ANNEXURE R4(j): COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF TP ACCOUNT nO.5205. ANNEXURE R4(k): COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF TP ACCOUNT NO.4016. ANNEXURE R4(l): COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE R4(M): COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE SURVEYOR AS DIRECTED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN,J ======================== O.P.No.17955 of 1998 ========================== Dated this the 28th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner purchased a parcel of land, 56 cents in extent, situated in Survey No.353/6/4 of Aryad North Village (presently Komalapuram Village), Ambalappuzha Taluk, Alappuzha District, as per a sale deed dated 3.7.1965, registered as document No.2561 of 1965. The petitioner had on the security of the said parcel of land, availed a loan of Rs.24,500/- from the Industries Department of the State Government for the purpose of setting up a small scale industrial unit therein. Since the petitioner did not repay the loan, steps were initiated against him under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for short, for realisation of the arrears. A sale notice under Section 49 of the Act was issued in respect of a portion of the land, 38.50 cents in extent. The sale of the property was held on 28.8.1975. For want of bidders, invoking the power under Section 50 of the Act, the officer conducting the sale purchased the property brought to sale on behalf of the State Government. Nearly two decades later, the petitioner O.P.No.17955/1998 2 submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 16.6.1994 addressed to the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, requesting that possession of the land may be restored to him on realisation of the entire arrears. He thereafter filed OP.No.11368 of 1994 in this Court seeking the following reliefs:- “a) To declare that respondents are legally bound to re- convey the 56 cents of garden land in Sy.No.353/6/4 of Aryad North Village(now of Komalpuram village) together with the granite foundations thereon to petitioner after evicting unauthorised occupants, if any over any portion of the same and on petitioner paying off the entire amounts due to the Government: b) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing respondents to reconvey the property to petitioner after evicting unauthorised occupants, if any, over any portion of the same on petitioner discharging his entire liability due to the Government; c) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents to consider and dispose of Exts.P4 and P7 as expeditiously as possible within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court with notice and opportunity to petitioner; d) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents not to assign that property or any portion thereof in favour of strangers and not to induct anybody thereon;” 2. By Ext.P6 judgment delivered on 30.8.1994, this Court disposed of O.P.No.11368 of 1994 with a direction to the Secretary, Board of Revenue to consider and pass orders on O.P.No.17955/1998 3 Ext.P4, which was produced and marked as Ext.P7 therein. Sri.D.Babu Paul, IAS, Member, Board of Revenue, considered Ext.P4 representation. Though a notice had been issued to the petitioner to be present for a hearing on 1.8.1995, he did not attend the hearing. By Ext.P9 order passed on 10.8.1995, the request in Ext.P4 was rejected. The petitioner thereupon filed O.P.No.3269 of 1996 in this Court challenging Ext.P9 order. By judgment delivered on 12.6.1997, this Court allowed O.P.No.3269 of 1996 and directed the Board of Revenue to consider the matter afresh with notice to the petitioner. The Board of Revenue thereafter issued a notice to the petitioner to be present for a hearing on 1.9.1997. The petitioner did not attend the said hearing as well. The Board of Revenue considered the petitioner's request in Ext.P4 and rejected it by order passed on 11.9.1997. The petitioner thereupon filed O.P.No.526 of 1998 in this Court challenging the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 11.9.1997, a copy of which is produced and marked as Annexure-B along with hearing note submitted in this case by the 6th respondent. O.P.No.17955/1998 4 3. O.P.No.526 of 1998 came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge on 23.8.2005. The petitioner had in the mean while filed this original petition on 11.9.1998. Taking note of the said fact, the learned Single Judge dismissed O.P.No.526 of 1998 by judgment delivered on 23.8.2005. The judgment in O.P.No.526 of 1998 reads thus:- “In view of the pendancy of O.P.No.17955/98 filed by the petitioner himself and pertains to the very same subject matter and the said original petition having taken note of the subsequent developments also nothing survives in this original petition. It is accordingly, dismissed.” 4. The petitioner has in this original petition prayed for the following reliefs:- “i)to call for the records and files leading to the issue of Exts.P1,P2 and P3 sale notices and quash the same by issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ direction or order; ii)to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order compelling the respondents to return the land to the petitioner on remittance of arrears and interest as per Ext.P1. iii)to direct the 3rd respondent to conduct necessary investigation regarding fabrication in the Government records to illegally help the 6th respondent to secure possession of land and prosecute them under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code as requested in Exts.P22 and P29 petitions. iv)to direct the 7th respondent to furnish the copies of the O.P.No.17955/1998 5 land register of old Sy.No.353/6-4 of Arayad North(now Komalapuram) Village in Ambalapuzha Taluk, Alleppey District., as requested by the petitioner in Ext.P26 application. v)to direct the 4th respondent to initiate steps for necessary enquiry and prosecution of officers who connived with 6th respondent, who helped the destruction and fabrication of original records to assist the 6th respondent to secure illegal claim of the land of the petitioner and to make illegal encroachment.” 5. I heard Sri.T.S.Radhakrishna Pillai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.P.K.Babu, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents and Sri.Mathew John, the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in this original petition is that the State Government and its officers had allowed tresspassers to encroach upon the lands belonging to him and that he is entitled to have the lands restored to his possession on payment of the entire arrears due to the State Government. The petitioner has also expressed his willingness to make the payment. The official respondents have filed a counter affidavit denying and disputing the petitioner's contentions. In the light of the order that I propose to pass in this original petition, it is not necessary to advert to the various O.P.No.17955/1998 6 contentions raised on either side. 6. A learned Single Judge of this Court had on 26.9.2005 passed the following order after hearing the learned counsel appearing on either side:- “It is stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 2,4 and 5 that. “As per the village records there was 56 cents of land in the TP Account No. in the name of Sri.P.Sivanandan (petitioner). At the time of attachment there was only 38.5 cents of land in the possession and enjoyment of the defaulter. The remaining 17.5 cents of land was retained in the TP account of the petitioner.” 2. In another proceedings it is stated that the said extent also has been attached. As a matter of fact, since in re-survey No.69/6 of Komalapuram Village, petitioner is the owner of 56 cents of property which has actually been mortgaged, there will be a direction to the 4th respondent, District Collector, Alappuzha, the 5th respondent Tahsildar, Ambalappuzha Taluk, Alappuzha and the 7th respondent, Assistant Director, Re-Survey, Chengannur to measure and demarcate the property referred to above and submit a report to this Court after locating the property. The needful shall be done within a period of one month from today. Copy of the order shall be handed over to the Government Pleader for communicating the same to the respondents 4, 5 and 7. Post after one month.” 7. As directed in the said order the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents filed a report dated 11.11.2005 in this Court, wherein inter-alia, it is stated as O.P.No.17955/1998 7 follows: “3. The bought in Land comprised in Resurvey No.68/6 (old Sy.No.353/6) of Komalapuram village was surveyed and demarcated. Accordingly the area marked in blue colour is the bought in land which comes to an extent of 35.320 cents. As per the re-survey records, there is a shortage of 3.180 cents in extent and that is marked in red colour. The area marked in red and blue colour is the actual Bought in land (35.320+3.180) which in toto comes to 38.500 cents. The area of 3.180 cents which is short as per the resurvey records seems to be included in Re-survey Nos.68/15, 68/5, 68/18 and is coloured in Red. Before the Re-survey Records came into effect an extent of 56 cents of land was in the TP account of Sri.Sivandnadan. Out of this 38.500 cents of land was attached and was taken as bought in land. The balance 17.500 cents of land which was in the possession of other persons now seems to be included in the Resurvey Nos.68/15, 68/5, 68/18. The area coloured in yellow colour is the encroached area. All areas coloured in Red, Blue and Yellow is now included in the compound of M/s.Palm Fiber Company. It is also reported that the office building and the main building of the company are situated in the land coloured in the blue and yellow.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. In the report dated 11.11.2005 filed by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, it is stated that 38.50 cents of lands belonging to the petitioner was brought to sale and purchased by the State Government in the revenue sale held under the provisions of the Act. It is also stated that the rest of the land belonging to the petitioner (17.50 cents in extent) was even then in the possession of O.P.No.17955/1998 8 strangers. It is also stated that out of the lands purchased by the State Government, an extent of 3.180 cents was in the possession of strangers. 9. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on either side and after perusing the report dated 11.11.2005 filed by the learned Government Pleader, a learned Single Judge of this Court on 5.7.2006 passed the following order:- “In the recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears due from the petitioner to the Industries Department, the Government in 1975 notified for sale 56 cents of petitioner's land situated on National Highway side. However, sale could not take place as there was no buyer. The petitioner's case is that the Government allowed the property to be encroached by others and as of now neither the petitioner nor the Government has the property. This is a serious matter which requires enquiry by the District Collector. In the course of revenue recovery, Government cannot take over land from defaulters and allow it to be encroached by others. The District Collector is directed to conduct enquiry, identify the land taken over from petitioner for sale and if land is under encroachment by others, he will find out whether the same could be recovered under the Land Conservancy Act or any other law. If eviction is permissible, he will take immediate steps for the same. In any case he will file a report in this court as to who is responsible for the encroachment and consequent loss to the Government. Even if petitioner is not found entitled to recover the land, Government has suffered loss is an obvious fact and the District Collector is bound to conduct an enquiry and I direct him to do so and file a detailed report in this court within six weeks from now.” 10. The 4th respondent, the District Collector, Alappuzha, O.P.No.17955/1998 9 has in terms of the directions issued by this Court on 5.07.2006 filed a report dated 9.8.2006, wherein, it is stated as follows: “An extent of 38,500 cents of bought-in-land comprised in Re-survey No.68/6 of Komalapuram village, Ambalappuzha Taluk which was taken over from the petitioner was identified and demarcated. The Tahsildar, Ambalapuzha has reported that there is slight variation in the extent as per Re-survey records i.e., 35.320 cents instead of 38.500 cents. The actual possession taken as bought in land was 38.500 cents. A shortage of 3.180 cents of land shows in the resurvey records. The Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records has been directed to locate the property and correct the re-survey records. The demarcation sketch is enclosed which is self explanatory. 2. Enquiry reveals that Sri. Mathew Joseph, proprietor M/s. Palm Fibre India (Pvt) Ltd., Pathirappally had unauthorisedly encroached into the above land and had made constructions thereon. A portion of the building No.167/Mannancherry Panchayat, garden and roads were constructed in the land. 3. The notice U/s. 11 of K.L.C.Act was issued to the Company on 16.06.1997 directing to demolish all the structures made therein and it was informed that otherwise it will be demolished by Government and the expenses incurred towards will be realised from the company. 4. Instead of complying with the direction the encroacher-Sri.Mathew Joseph has filed as O.S.No.87/97 before the Munsiff Court, Alappuzha and it was decreed on 28.01.2003 that by way of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants (ie. State of Kerala represented by the District Collector, Alappuzha and Tahsildar, Ambalapuzha) from proceeding further in pursuance to notice issued for eviction. It is made clear that the defendant can take appropriate legitimate steps under due process of law for eviction of unauthorised O.P.No.17955/1998 10 occupation if any bought-in land in Sy.No.353/6/4. 5. Against the above decree and judgment, Government have filed AS.85/03 before the District Court, Alappuzha and the above case was dismissed on 16.11.2005. As instructed by the Additional District Government Pleader-II, Alappuzha proposal for filing second appeal against the said judgment and decree has been furnished to Advocate General's office on 06.12.2005. It is learnt from the Office of the Advocate General, Ernakulam that the Advocate General has accepted the appeal proposal with Revn.No.47/05/W. 6. In the mean time Sri.Mathew Joseph has also filed a W.P.(C).No.35050/05 before this Hon'ble Court against the eviction proceedings. The final orders in this case is awaited.” 11. The report dated 9.8.2006 filed by the District Collector discloses that the 6th respondent herein was in occupation of the entire land having an extent of 56 cents and that steps have been initiated against him under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act,1957. When this original petition came up for hearing on 22.6.2007, it was submitted by the learned Government Pleader that an extent of 38.50 cents of land which was in possession of the 6th respondent, has been taken over by the Government on 21.5.2007. Taking note of the said submission, this Court passed an order on 22.6.2007 directing the 4th respondent-District Collector to file an affidavit. The order passed by this Court on 22.6.2007 reads thus:- O.P.No.17955/1998 11 “When the matter came up for consideration today, the Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that an extent of 38.5 cents in re-survey No.68/6 of Komalapuram Village which was in the possession of the 6th respondent, has been taken under the Government custody on 21/05/2007. A letter dated 14.6.2007 of the District Collector was also produced before me. The learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the above facts. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 4th respondent to file an affidavit in respect of the above issue, within a period of two weeks form today. Post on 6/7/2007.” 12. As directed by this Court, the District Collector Alappuzha has filed an affidavit dated 29.06.2007 stating inter alia that an extent of 38.50 cents belonging to the petitioner was attached and brought to sale under the Act and purchased by the State Government in the year 1975, that the petitioner was in possession of only 38.50 cents of land, that when the properties were attached and brought to sale, the rest of the land, 17.50 cents in extent, had already been encroached upon by other persons, that the 6th respondent had encroached upon the lands purchased by the Government in the revenue sale and that the Tahsildar, Ambalappuzha has on 21.05.2007 taken possession of the Government lands from the 6th respondent after issuing a notice under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957. The affidavit proceeds to state that the 6th respondent is in O.P.No.17955/1998 12 possession of other lands and has put up buildings therein and that those lands are not Government lands. 13. It is not in dispute that the revenue sale took place long back in the year 1975. It is also not in dispute that it was 19 years later that the petitioner came forward with Ext.P4 representation requesting for reconveyance of the bought in land on payment of the arrears due to the State Government. The said representation was directed to be considered and disposed of on its merits by Ext.P6 judgment. It was considered and rejected initially by Ext.P9 order dated 10.8.1995 and later by Annexure-B order dated 11.9.1997. The petitioner did not chose to appear before the Board of Revenue, though notice had been given to him, before Ext.P9 and Annexure B orders were passed. It is evident from the pleadings that an extent of 38.50 cents of land from out of 56 cents of land belonging to the petitioner was brought to sale under the provisions of the Act. Though this Court had directed the petitioner to appear before the Board of Revenue, he did not attend the hearing on two occasions. The petitioner has also not challenged Annexure-B order dated 11.9.1997 in this original petition. O.P.No.526 of 1998 filed by O.P.No.17955/1998 13 the petitioner, challenging oder passed by the Board of Revenue on 11.9.1997 was dismissed on 23.8.2005. In my view, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief at this distance of time in relation to the lands purchased by the State Government in the revenue sale. As regards the remaining land, it is seen from the pleadings that the 6th respondent is in possession thereof. It is for the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings in the competent civil court to recover the lands presently in the possession of the 6th respondent. It is also evident from the pleadings that though the 6th respondent had encroached upon the lands belonging to the State Government, he has been evicted therefrom. In the view that I have taken, I dismiss this original petition, reserving liberty with the petitioner to institute appropriate civil proceedings against the 6th respondent in the competent civil court to recover possession of 17.50 cents of land belonging to him as per Sale Deed No.2561/65 dated 3.7.1965. No costs. P.N.RAVINDRAN,JUDGE dvs