IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 24203 of 2003(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. CHACKO, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI, RESIDING AT PADINJAKKARA HOUSE, SURYANELLY KARA, CHINNAKKANAL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. MUJEEB, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. KHADAR, RESIDING AT KANJIRATHINKAL HOUSE, SURYANELLY KARA, CHINNAKKANAL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. NAJIYAMOLE, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O. MOIDEEN, RESIDING AT SAITHUKUDY HOUSE, SURYANELLY KARA, CHINNAKKANAL VILAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. SHAJI, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. HASSANKUTTY, PUTHIYAKUNNEL HOUSE, SURYANELLY KARA, CHINNAKKANAL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. MATHEW, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI, RESIDING AT PARACKKUNNEL HOUSE, SURYANELLY KARA, CHINNAKKANAL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 6. AYYAPPAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT PARACHALIL HOUSE, SURYANELLY KARA, CHINNAKKANAL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 7. PUSHKARAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT MATNAYIL HOUSE, SURYANELLY KARA, CHINNAKKANAL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 8. FATHIMA, AGED 51 YEARS, D/O.KOCHUMUHAMMAD,RESIDING AT CHITTETHUKUDY HOUSE, SURYANELLY KARA, CHINNAKKANAL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.POULOSE WPC 24203/03 RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KUYILIMALA, IDUKKI. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, CIVIL STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL - R1TO3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 24203/2003 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 25.6.1969. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S.29/2000 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, DEVIKULAM DATED 5.4.2000. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.20803/2000B DTD. 4.9.2000. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER NO.1 FOR ASSIGNMENT OF 2.50 ACRES OF LAND AND THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND TAHSILDAR AS PER PROCEEDINGS NO.2512/2002 DATED 3.1.2002. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER FOR ASSIGNMENT OF 3.50 ACRES OF LAND AND THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND TAHSILDAR AS PER PROCEEDINGS NO.2513/2002 DTD. 3.1.2002. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER FOR ASSIGNMENT OF 3 ACRES OF LAND AND THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND TAHSILDAR AS PER PROCEEDINGS NO.2514/2002 DTD. 3.1.2002. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER FOR ASSIGNMENT OF 3 ACRES OF LAND AND THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND TAHSILDAR AS PER PROCEEDINGS NO.2515/2002 DTD. 3.1.2002. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER FOR ASSIGNMENT OF 2.50 ACRES OF LAND AND THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND TAHSILDAR AS PER PROCEEDINGS NO.2516/2002 DATED 3.1.2002. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER FOR ASSIGNMENT OF 3 ACRES OF LAND AND THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND TAHSILDAR AS PER PROCEEDINGS NO.2517/2002 DATED 3.1.2002. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER FOR ASSIGNMENT OF 3 ACRES OF LAND AND THE ACTION TAKEN BYR THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND TAHSILDAR AS PER PROCEEDINGS NO.2518/2002 DTD. 3.1.2002. EXT.P11 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 8TH PETITIONER FOR ASSIGNMENT OF 3.50 ACRES OF LAND AND THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND TAHSILDAR AS PER PROCEEDINGS NO.2519/2002 DTD. 3.1.2002. EXT.P12 - TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 12.9.2002 IN O.P.NO.8680/2002-G EXT.P13 - TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH DATED 6.12.2002 PREPARED BY THE HEAD SURVEYOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. EXT.P14 - TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 10.1.2003 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 24203 OF 2003-F ----------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioners claim, they are in possession of various extents of land in Sy. Nos.34/1-229/230 of Chinnakanal Village in Udumbanchola Taluk. The extent of land held by each petitioner ranges from 2.5 acres to 3.5 acres, covering a total area of 24 acres. The petitioners submit, the said 24 acres of land was, originally, in the possession of one Mr.A.Karuppuswamy, S/o.Appavu, Gundmala Colony, since 1940. He made improvements to the land and obtained Ext.P1 possession certificate dated 25.6.1969, which would show that the person in possession has made improvements in the land about six months back from the date of issuance of that certificate, that is, 25.6.1969. One Mr.Hassankutty, S/o.Abdul Khader, Puthiyakunnel house, purchased the entire 24 acres from the said Karuppuswamy. Later, when one Mr.Haneefa and one Mr.Peter tried to trespass into that property, Hassankutty along with Karuppusawmy filed O.S.No.29/2000 before the Munsiff's Court, Devikulam and obtained a WPC 24203/03 2 decree of injunction against the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. Ext.P2 is the decree in that suit. Later, when the defendants in that suit tried to trespass into the plaint schedule property, Hassankutty moved this Court, by filing O.P.No.20803/2000 and obtained an order for police protection against M/s.Haneefa and Peter, to prevent their trespass into the property covered by Ext.P2 decree. The petitioners claim, they purchased various extents of land from the aforementioned Hassankutty, some time in 2000 or 2001. Thereafter, they submitted Exts.P4 to P11 applications for assignment of the land purchased by them, before the District Collector. Those applications were forwarded by the District Collector to the Special Tahsildar (LA), Rajakumary for appropriate action. The Special Tahsildar, in turn, forwarded them to the Superintendent of Survey and Land Records, Rajakkad, for preparation of survey records with sub division. When there was inordinate delay in preparing the survey records, the petitioners approached this Court by filing O.P.No.8680/2002. The said O.P was disposed of, recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that necessary action WPC 24203/03 3 will be taken by the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records within four months. The petitioners submit, thereafter the property in their possession was surveyed by the Head Surveyor, Collectorate, Idukki and they were able to obtain a copy of that survey plan, which is produced as Ext.P13 in this writ petition. While so, the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, purportedly in obedience to the direction in Ext.P13 judgment, addressed Ext.P14 communication to the petitioners. By the said communication, the petitioners were informed that as part of the proceedings for assignment of the land, survey sub division cannot be done, in the light of the relevant orders on the subject. The Deputy Director pointed out that the land in question, as per the re-survey done in 1976, is set apart for eucalyptus cultivation by the Forest Department. In other words, it is not an assignable land. Further, the re-survey records do not show either the petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest, as the person in possession of the land in 1976. One Mr.Kumaran has also come forward with a claim that he is in possession of the land claimed by the petitioners. So, the Deputy Director felt that evidence is being manipulated and WPC 24203/03 4 manufactured to show that the petitioners are in possession of the Government land and therefore, their claim cannot be accepted. This Writ Petition was filed, challenging Ext.P14 and also seeking consequential reliefs. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land in question is not forest land, but revenue puramboke and therefore, the petitioners' applications are liable to be considered. It is further submitted that the Deputy Director has no authority to take a decision, as was done in Ext.P14. Only the competent authority under the Land Assignment Rules can do that. Even if the name of the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners is not shown in the re-survey records, the same is not conclusive. So, the petitioners pray for quashing Ext.P14. They also pray for a further direction to respondents 1 and 3 to assign the land covered by Exts.P4 to P11 and grant them patta. 3. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit, disputing the claim of the petitioners. It is submitted that the Government have taken a policy decision to assign land to the occupants, who were occupying cardamom hill reserve/forest land prior to 1.1.1977, on the basis of the WPC 24203/03 5 joint verification of the occupation by the forest and revenue officials. It is also submitted that the cardamom hill reserve area was subjected to re-survey in 1976/1977 and the land register prepared would show the names of the occupants. The disputed land now falls under Re- survey Block No.8, Sy.No.178 and it is shown as set apart for eucalyptus and pine cultivation, for the forest department. Among the column of occupants, there is no other entry other than “sarkar”, it is submitted. The 1st respondent further submitted that Ext.P14 is not an order. Ext.P14 is only a report submitted by the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, for disposing of the applications of the petitioners in accordance with law. The said officer found that the petitioners do not have any right over the property concerned. No Village Officer is authorised to give possession certificate to a private party for 24 acres of Government land. Ext.P1 is not genuine, it is submitted. No one has possession over the land and the claim of purchase made by the petitioners is unfounded, it is submitted. The Superintendent of Survey and Land Records, Rajakkad inspected the property and found that the petitioners are not having any land in the WPC 24203/03 6 area, as they claim, even on the date of inspection, it is submitted. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. In view of the above facts stated in the counter affidavit, the learned Government Pleader prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. The claim of the petitioners that Karuppuswamy was in possession of the land since 1940 is plainly untenable, because in the year 2000, he was aged only 51, going by Ext.P2 decree. Further, Ext.P1 cannot be taken as a genuine document, as it is given by the Village Officer, concerning encroachment of Government land, which is only six months old. The Village Officer, who is supposed to protect the land, has given Ext.P1, to strengthen the hands of the encroacher. Going by Exts.P4 to P11, it would appear that they are applications filed under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. The said Rules permit only assignment of Government land up to an extent of 50 cents (as per the recent amendment) for landless family and that too, subject to various stringent conditions. From the contentions of the respondents, it would appear that the land in question is Cardamom Hill Reserve land and not revenue land, available for assignment. Relying on the survey WPC 24203/03 7 records and also based on physical verification, the 1st respondent submits that the petitioners have no possession over the property. Though they would claim in their applications for assignment that they are in possession since 1969, the said assertion is seriously disputed by the official respondents, by stating that the petitioners were never in possession of the land. In view of the disputed state of facts, no relief could be granted to the petitioners. The prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the competent authority may be directed to consider and pass orders on Exts.P4 to P11 also cannot be granted, as the petitioners have failed to establish the basic facts for issuing such a direction. In the face of the assertion of the respondents that the petitioners were never in possession of the land, no purpose will be served by directing the District Collector/Tahsildar to consider their applications Exts.P4 to P11. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. 21st November, 2008. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/