IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931 WA.No. 1911 of 2006(B) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.10048/2004 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, SPV LANDS NO.III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL. APPELLANTS: 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VATTAPPARA. 5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENJARAMOODU. (THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF RESPONDENTS 12 AND 13 ARE TRANSPOSED TO THE APPELLANTS' SIDE VIDE ORDER DT.29.5.2007 IN I.A. NO.1231/2006.) BY ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.RANJIT THAMPAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 7 & RESP. 4 TO 9): -------------------------- 1. MARIYAM BEEVI, W/O.MOHAMMED KUNJU, KIZHAKKUMKAKRA PUTHEN VEEDU, THOPPUMURI, THEKKADA VILLAGE, KALLIKKADU, NEDUMANGAD. 2. AMINA UMMAL, D/O.BEEVIKUNJU, CHIRYIL VEEDU, KALLIKADU. 3. SALKA UMMAL, D/O.BEEVI KUNJU, ERA PUTHEN VEEDU, EDATHARA, MANIKKAL VILLAGE. 4. SALIM, S/O.ABDUL KHAN, DARUSSALAM, AYLAROORPARA, POTHENCODE, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE REP. BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ABDUL WAHID, CHIRAYIL VEEDU, KALLIKKADU, THEKKADA. 5. N.NABEESA BEEVI, W/O.SHAMSUDHEEN, NAJMA MANZIL, ENTHIKKADU, MANICKAL. 6. NAJMA, D/O.SHAMSUDHEEN, NAJMA MANZIL, ENTHIKKADU, MANIKKAL. 7. NADEERA, D/O.SHAMSUDHEEN, NAJMA MANZIL, ENTHIKKADU, MANICKAL. 8. ANIL KUMAR, S/O.KESAVAN NAIR, PRESIDENT, VEMBAYAM CONGRESS MANDALAM COMMITTEE, VEMBAYAM. 9. K.SADANANDAN, PRESIDENT, TEMPLE SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHY, POTHUPARA, RESIDING AT MANJAPRA, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, CHEERANIKKARA P.O., VEMBAYAM, NEDUMANGAD. 10. R.SURESH, SECRETARY, TEMPLE SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHY, POTHUPARA, RESIDING AT KUZHIVILA VEEDU, CHEERANIKKARA P.O., VEMBAYAM. 11. KUMAR, S/O.GOPI, VILAYIL VEEDU, THEKKADA, NEDUMANGAD TALUK. 12. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VATTAPPARA. (*)(DELETED) 13. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENJARAMOODU. (*)(DELETED) (RESPONDENT NOS.12 AND 13 ARE DELETED AS PER ORDER DT.29.5.2007.) ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R1 TO 7 SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R9 & 10 SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.1911 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Writ Appeal is filed by the State against the judgment of the learned Single Judge reversing the order of the Collector and restoring the order of assignment granted by the Tahsildar in favour of respondents 1 to 7 herein under Section 3 of the Sree Pandaravaka Land (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1971. We have heard Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant and Sri.R.S.Kalkura appearing for the respondents. 9.57 acres of land in Thekkada Village in Nedumangad Taluk was obtained by Sri.Eapen through a sale deed of 3.9.1954. It is not on record as to the person or persons from whom the said Eapen purchased the property. However, Eapen later sold the property to one Mr.Balakrishnan and Smt.Saraladevi on 5.6.1962. They sold the property vide Ext.P4 to one Sri.Girish on 16.4.1982. The said Girish sold the property to the vendors from whom respondents 1 to 7 purchased the properties. The 2 sale deeds executed by Girish to the vendors of respondents 1 to 7 are also produced as Exts.P5, P5(a) and P5(b). Respondents 1 to 7 obtained the properties through sale deed produced as Ext.P1 dated 20.10.1994. After an year on 24.1.1995 respondents 1 to 7 assigned 1.07 acres of land to a temple located within the property and balance 8.57 acres are held by them as of now. In 2003 they applied for assignment of the land under the Act abovereferred on the ground that the land is Sree Pandaravaka. Admittedly Sree Pandaravaka land is assignable to the holders of the property. In other words those who are in possession and enjoyment of the property are entitled to assignment of Sree Pandaravaka land. Petitioners in the W.P.(C) applied for such an assignment and for issuing patta, in 2003. The Tahsildar on enquiry found that land held by respondents 1 to 7 were Sree Pandaravaka land and he accordingly assigned the land to them through Ext.P11 series. However, the District Collector on complaint from respondents 8 to 11 in the Writ Appeal cancelled the patta holding that land is not Sree Pandaravaka. The order of the Collector produced as Ext.P17 in the W.P.(C) was challenged before this court and the 3 learned Single Judge quashed the same against which this appeal is filed by the State. 2. After hearing both sides and after going through the orders of the Tahsildar and of the District Collector, we are of the view that the stand of the Government that the land is Pandaravaka land and not Sree Pandaravaka land is rightly turned down by the learned Single Judge. In the first place, the land records maintained by the Government itself is inconsistent because the Tahsildar by relying on Revenue records identified the land as Puramboke Tharissu. The description of the land in the title deed is Sree Pandaravaka. Sree Pandaravaka lands are lands originally belonged to the temple and once upon a time given to various tenants for cultivation. Admittedly there is a temple in the property and respondents 1 to 7 generously gave 1 acre and 7 cents of land to the temple. We are of the view that claim of land by the temple is quite legitimate or otherwise, the owners would not have surrendered such extensive land to the temple free of cost. So association of the land with temple is something established by this conduct of respondents 1 to 7. Further, for the last 55 years Government has not 4 chosen to identify this as Government land is evident from the series of title deeds produced by the petitioners, the genuineness of which are not doubted by the appellants. Even after declaring the land as Pandaravaka land, the Collector does not take any step for repossessing the land, if at all the same is possible. Therefore, the possession and enjoyment of the land by the claimants and the previous owners for the last 50 years is beyond any contest. The Government does not gain anything by contending that they have ownership of land held and enjoyed by individuals. We, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge who has upheld the order of the Tahsildar. Consequently we dismiss the appeal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms