IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5048 of 2009(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MATHEW KUTTY, S/O.LATE T.A.VARGHESE, THAZHATHIL VEEDU, KARAVALOOR P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE HOLTYCULTURAL, PRODUCTS DEVELOPMENT, CORPORATION, UTHAYAGIRI, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. G.P. SRI.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO.5685 OF 2009,THE COURT ON 03/02/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(WPC NO.5048/2009) PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: P1: PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED NO.4734/06 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM SUB- REGISTRY. P2: PHOTOCOPY OF TAX RECEIPT DT.2.2.07 IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER. P3: TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.2470/1954 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM SUB- REGISTRY. P4: TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.8392/1962 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM SUB REGISTRY. P5: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR ASSIGNMENT OF LAND SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKKARA. P6: TRUE COPY OF REPORT DT.30.11.07 IN L.A.3/07-08 PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHADAYAMANGALAM. P7: TRUE COPY OF MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DT.25.11.2007. P8: TRUE COPY OF PROFORMA REPORT PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHADAYAMANGALAM. P9: PHOTOCOPY OF VERIFICATION REPORT PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHADAYAMANGALAM. P10: PHOTOCOPY OF SKETCH AND PLAN SHOWING THE POSITION OF LAND FOR ASSIGNMENT PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHADAYAMANGALAM. P11: TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX REGISTER OF THE LAND FOR ASSIGNMENT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER. P12: TRUE COPY OF LAND ASSIGNEMENT LIST PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER. P13: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.28.5.08 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR KOTTARAKKARA. P14:TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.3.6.2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.16481/2008. P15: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B10-18637/2008 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY THE TAHSILDAR KOTTARAKKARA.A P16: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL ALONG WITH PETITION FOR SUSPENDING THE OPERATION OF EXT.P14 ORDER FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R3. P17: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.22.9.2008 IN W.P.(C) NO.28009/2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P18: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF R3 SHOWING THE DATE OF HEARING OF EXT.P16 APPEAL. P19: RUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY PETITIONER UNDER RULE 21 OF THE KERALA LAND ASSIGNMENT RULE 1964 BEFORE R3. P20: TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S. NO.559/2008 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. P21: TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN I.A. NO.3107/2008 FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A COMMISSION. P22: TRUE COPY OF REPORT MAHAZAR AND ROUGH SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY PREPARED WHICH IS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE PETITIONER. P23: TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.06/2009/REVENUE DT.5.1.2009 ISSUED BY R1. TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) Nos.5048 & 5685 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010. JUDGMENT Connected Writ Petitions are filed by two persons who are equally aggrieved against the attempt by the respondents to take over land held by them by declaring it as Puramboke land. The case of the petitioners' is that the land held by them, which in the case of one person is 47 cents and in the case of the other is a little over one acre, was purchased by them several years back. According to the petitioners, the land was cultivated with rubber over fifty years back and even now land is under cultivation in their possession and enjoyment. The petitioners' have a case that the resurvey itself was not properly done and the same led to treatment of the land as Puramboke land which according to the petitioners, the land is not. I have heard Government Pleader also in the matter. 2. As of now, position is that the Tahsildar as well as the RDO decided against the petitioners in the Land Conservancy proceedings and revisions against the RDO's order are pending before the District 2 Collector. The petitioners have an alternate case that even if the land is Puramboke land, being persons in possession and enjoyment they are entitled to assignment of the same and for this purpose they approached the Tahsildar with petitions for assignment. Inspite of favourable report from the Village Officer, the Tahsildar, however, declined to assign the land against which appeals filed are pending before the RDO. It is also submitted that petitioners have filed Civil Suits in respect of the very same property. In view of the proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act issued by the Tahsildar confirmed by the RDO, the Government proposed to lease out the land to Kerala State Horticultural Corporation for processing honey. However, considering the litigation pending before various authorities, the Government itself has kept in abeyance the orders granting lease to the Government Corporation. W.P.(C)s are filed apprehending eviction. 3. After hearing both sides and after considering the proceedings pending before various authorities at various levels under different statutes, I feel, in the first place, civil case itself is out of place because 3 matter can be settled through statutory authorities under the Land Conservancy Act, Land Assignment Act or under the Survey and Boundaries Act. It is, therefore, open to the petitioners to withdraw the Civil Suit and pursue the matter before statutory authorities. However, going by the sequence of events that have taken place, I feel the RDO should consider and dispose of the appeals filed under the Land Assignment Act so that if favourable orders are obtained by the petitioners, the matters before the District Collector may have no relevance. On the other hand, if the result of appeals is not favourable, petitioners can take up the matter under the Land Assignment Act in revision or appeal before the Collector so that the Collector will decide all the matters together. Further, in view of the petitioners' allegation that there is discrimination in regard to identification and repossession of Puramboke land, it is for the Collector to consider whether others are also in possession and enjoyment of Puramboke land and if so, repossession should be made by taking into account the hardship of the various land owners. In fact, if larger extent of Puramboke land is held 4 by land owners with substantial holding of land, the small holders of Puramboke land should not be evicted and eviction should be from those who have larger holdings. Further, since assignment is permissible, those holding small extent of Puramboke land should be assigned the land because otherwise they will be deprived of their valuable possession of little land. W.P.(C)s are accordingly disposed of directing the respondents to withhold the proceedings for lease out of petitioners' property or otherwise dispossession of the petitioners from the land for a period of six months from now. The RDO is directed to dispose of the appeals filed under the land Assignment Act within two months from date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The District Collector will thereafter dispose of all the appeals, revisions or other matters pending before him, within a period of three months thereafter. If petitioners have grievance against the orders of the RDO, petitioners can take up the matter, if permissible, before the Collector so that the Collector will consider the said case also together. I make it clear that the Collector should consider all the matters, though under 5 different statutes, together and pass orders without leaving anything still pending so that the matter attains finality. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms