IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22227 of 2011(C) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JOYS ENTERPRISES, PO BOX NO.103,TB ROAD,THRISSUR-680 021. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR N.V JOY. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, UDUMBANCHOLA,PIN-685 554. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, CHINNAKKANAL, PIN-685 618. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA FOR ADV.COMMSSR SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUSHEELA BHATT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2011, THE COURT ON 21/12/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.22227/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.2419/05 DATED 10/10/05 F RAJAKUMARI SUB REGISTRY. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF PATTA DATED 15.9.95 ISSUED UNDER THE LAND ASSIGNMENT ACT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF PTTA DT 27.8.1974 ISSUED UNDER THE LAND ASSIGNMENT ACT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF PATTAS DATED 30.9.1975 ISSUED UNDER THE LAND ASSIGNMENT ACT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DT 17.2.06 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF PROHIBITORY ORDER DT 29.10.08 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT 20.11.08 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF OBJECTIONS DATED 26.11.08 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF STOP MEMO DT 18.6.2010 ISSUED by the 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 23.6.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PEITIOENR BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 12.8.2010. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 27.8.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 6.9.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DT 8.9.2010 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P15: TRUECOPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THNDAPER REGISTER. EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF THE PAGES OF NUMBER 2 REGISTER RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF LA 71/72 PATTA. EXT.P17: TRUE COPY OF SURVEY SKETCH. WPC NO.22227/11 -2- EXT.P18: TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF THE TALUK SURVEYOR, UDUMBANCHOLA. EXT.P19: TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT DATED 22.9.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P20: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DT 22.9.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P21: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DT 21.11.2010 GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P22: TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT DT 9.12.2010. EXT.P23: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 10.12.2010. EXT.P24: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 25.2.2011 FROM THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P25: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT 25.7.11. EXT.P26: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11.08.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P27: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE IN FORM CC ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P28: TRUE COPY OF SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE AND NATURE OF THE HUGE ROCKS IN THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXT.P29: TRUE COPY OF MAHAZAR PRODUCED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE REVIEW PETITION. EXT.P30: TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1734/94 DATED 05.09.94. EXT.P31: TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.857/05 DTED 22.3.05. EXT.P32: TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1598/94 DATED 19.08.94. EXT.P33: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 16.09.64 ABOVE SAID OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXT.P34: TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXT.P35: TRUE COPY OF NEWS PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 29.08.2011. EXT.P36: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT CHAPTER FROM THE REPORT OF SRI.GOPALA MENON, ADDITIONAL LAND REVENUE COMMISSINER. WPC NO.22227/11 -3- EXT.P37: TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FORM A REPORT UNDER RULE 7 OF THE TRANSFER OF REGISTRY RULES 1966. EXT.P38: TRUE COPY OF UNNAMED REGISTER HANDED OVER BY RESPONDENTS. EXT.P39: TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.2100/01. EXT.P40: TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1833/91. 1 st RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.02.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.06.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 05.08.2011. EXT.R1(d): TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DRAWN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES. EXT.R1(e): TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED IN TAKING OVER THE SITE AND LAND. EXT.R1(f): TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED IN TAKING OVER THE SITE AND LAND. EXT.R1(g): TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED IN TAKING OVER THE SITE AND LAND. EXT.R1(h): TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED IN TAKING OVER THE SITE AND LAND. EXT.R1(i): TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OBTAINED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN RESPECT OF THE HANDING OVER. EXT.R1(j): TRUE COPY OF THANDAPER NO.156 OF CHINNAKKANAL VILLAGE AS ORIGINALLY ENTERED IN THE VILLAGE RECORDS. EXT.R1(k): TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTER SHOWING DETAILS OF TAX REMITTANCE. EXT.R1(l): TRUE COPY OF THE COMPARATIVE DETAILS OF THANDAPER NO.155 RELATING TO THE LAND ASSIGNED TO ONE KUNJANKRISHNANKUTTY WHOSE THANDAPER WAS CARRIED FORWARD AS THANDAPER NO.625. WPC NO.22227/11 -4- EXT.R1(m): TRUE COPY OF THE EARLIER THANDAPER OF SRI.KUNJANKRISHNAN KUTTY WHO WAS ASSIGNED PATAYAM NO.LA 12/1964 AND THANDAPER NO.155. EXT.R1(n): TRUE COPY OF THE LA 73/72 THE NEW THANDAPER NO.724. EXT.R1(o): TRUE COPY OF CORRESPONDING REGISTER WHICH SHOWS NO.32 IN RESPECT OF LA 73/72. EXT.R1(p): TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF THE PATTAYAM WHICH SHOWS THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAND. EXT.R1(q): TRUE COPY OF THE DEED EXECUTED BY ONE PARAMAN WHO WAS THE ALLEGED PATTA HOLDER OF LA 73/72. 1 st RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT IN IA NO.14877/11 IN WPC 22227/11 : EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.A1.11/2011 DATED 07.06.2011 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT ANNEXURES ANNEXURE C1: INVENTORY ANNEXURE C2: PHOTOGRAPHS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 22227 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 21st day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Exts.P26 & P27 and to hold that the petitioner’s ownership, possession and enjoyment of the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed is not liable to be interfered with by the respondents. 2. According to the petitioner, Exts.P2, P3 and P4 are Pattas issued under the Kerala Land Assignment Act. It is stated that Ext.P2 was issued in LA No.41/64, in respect of 1.19 acres of land in Sy.No.87/1 of Chinnakanal Village, Ext.P3 was issued in LA No.71/72 in respect of 2.50 acres of land in Sy.No. 87/1 of the same Village and Ext.P4 was issued in LA No. 73/72 in respect of 1.85 cents of land in Sy.No.87/1 of Chinnakanal Village. It is further stated that 5.17 acres of land in Sy.No.87/1 of Chinnakanal Village, covered by the aforesaid pattas, were purchased by them as per Ext.P1 sale deed dated 10.10.2005. Ext.P5 tax receipt shows that the property was mutated in their name and that tax has been paid on that basis. Thus, the petitioner claims absolute title and possession of the land covered by Exts.P1 to P5 referred to above. WPC No.22227/11 :2 : 3. In this property, on the strength of the Building Permit obtained from the Panchayat, they commenced construction of a resort. While so, on 29.10.2008, Ext.P6 prohibitory order was issued by the 1st respondent stating that an enquiry regarding the bogus pattas and encroachments in Chinnakanal was being conducted by a Special Task Force and that since verification of the documents submitted by the petitioner was not completed, they should immediately stop construction activities. This was followed by Ext.P7 notice dated 20.11.2008, informing the petitioner that Ext.P3 patta in LA No.71/72 in respect of 2.50 acres of land was a fraudulent one and that all transactions are also vitiated. On that basis, petitioner was called upon to show cause why further action shall not be taken and were also asked to appear before the 1st respondent for an enquiry on 26.11.2008. On receipt of Ext.P7, petitioner filed Ext.P8 reply, denying the allegations in Ext.P7 and reiterating the genuineness of the patta relied on by them. They also sought copies of the materials relied on by the 1st respondent to conclude that the patta was fraudulent and an opportunity to explain the matter. 4. Petitioner says that they complied with the prohibitory orders, but had to do some maintenance works and that, even that was also prohibited as per Ext.P9 stop memo issued on 18.06.2010. On WPC No.22227/11 :3 : receipt of Ext.P9, petitioner replied by Ext.P10 denying the allegations in the notice and also contending that whatever construction that was carried on was in the undisputed area of their property. 5. In view of the stop memos and the prohibitory orders, since the petitioner was unable to continue the work and as there was no progress in the enquiry, petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.28385/2010 before this Court. That writ petition was disposed of on 12.08.2010 by Ext.P11 judgment, in which, taking note of the fact that since the issuance of the prohibitory order almost two years had already elapsed, it was directed that final orders shall be issued at any rate within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Soon thereafter, Ext.P12 notice dated 27.08.2010 was issued by the 1st respondent, in which, in so far as the land in possession of the petitioner is concerned, the following allegations were made (English translation); “i) 0.8681 Hectares (2.15 Acres) in Sy. No.87/1 having Thandaper No.3946 is obtained or transfer from 0.9875 Hectares (2.45 acres) of land having Thandaper No.3594. But the prior Thandaper Number of Thandaper No.3594, viz. Thandaper No.626, is seen torn off from the Thandaper Register of the year 2004. Thandaper No.156, which is relatable to Thandaper No.626 and which was in existence prior to the Thandaper Register being copied down, is seen to be relatable to 1.19 acres in Sy.No.87/1-13 and 87/1-14 assigned to Sunderraj, S/o. Ayyannan as per Patta in L.A.No.41/64. There is no assignment record showing issuance of LA No.71/72 patta and the said patta has not been assigned Thandaper number. Therefore, Thandaper No.3594 is created by tampering with Thandaper Nos.626 and 71/72 Patta is not in existence, WPC No.22227/11 :4 : ii) 0.0461 Hectares (0.1139 acres) in Sy.No.87/1-13 is obtained on transfer from 0.0769 Hrs (0.190 acres) bearing Thandaper No.2603. The prior Thandaper number of Thandaper No.2603 is seen to be Thandaper No.626. Thandaper No.626 has been tampered and there is a Vigilance enquiry in respect of the relatable Patta LA 41/64, iii) 0.664 Hectares (1.641 Acres) in Sy.No.87/1 is obtained on transfer from 0.7365 Hectares (1.81 Acres) bearing Thandaper No.2508. As per prior Thandaper Numbers, the said property belongs to Patta in L.A.No.73/72 issued in the name of Ayyamman Paraman. A Vigilance enquiry is being held against the said Patta as well, iv) 0.0202 Hectares (0.499 Acres) in Sy.No.87/1-1 do not come under L.A.No.71/72, 41/64 and 73/72 Pattas. v) Only 1.5985 Hectares (3.94 Acres) is available under Thandaper No.3946. The basis for the claim of ownership of 56.54 Acres in letter dated 23.06.2010 is not discernable.” 6. On the aforesaid basis, petitioner was told that they were liable to be evicted under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act from 1.3835 Hr. (3.42 Acre) of land covered by Ext.P3 Patta in LA No.71/72. They were accordingly called upon to show cause why the Thandapper in respect of 0.8685 Hr. and 0.0202 Hr. of land shall not be cancelled and necessary orders passed under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act in respect of 0.952 Hr. of land. 7. On receipt of Ext.P12, Ext.P13 reply was submitted by the petitioner requesting to furnish them copy of the documents mentioned at the Annexure to the said letter. On its receipt, the Tahsildar issued Ext.P14 reply, enclosing copies of the available documents which include Exts.P15 and P16, the assignment register and Thandapper WPC No.22227/11 :5 : account. On receipt of these documents petitioner submitted Ext.P19 reply to Ext.P14 and also submitted Ext.P20 representation requesting to withdraw the stop memo. In this request petitioner relied on Ext.P18, report submitted by the Taluk Surveyor to the 1st respondent stating that the construction undertaken by the petitioner was not in the disputed land. To the request so made by the petitioner, Ext.P21 is the reply given by the 1st respondent, reiterating the contention that the Patta was a fraudulent one and calling upon the petitioner to appear for an enquiry on 09.02.2010. 8. According to the petitioner on account of the non-availability of the 1st respondent, though the enquiry was not held on that day, they filed Ext.P22 statement once again refuting the allegations in the show case notices. This was followed by Ext.P23, by which counsel for the petitioner, again sought an opportunity of hearing in the matter. Accordingly, a hearing was scheduled on 18.01.2011, which was adjourned to 26.02.2011 and again to 03.03.2011, when on account of inconvenience to the counsel, he sought an adjournment as per Ext.P24. Thereafter, the hearing was scheduled on 15.07.2011 which was adjourned to 21.07.2011, when on account of the illness of the counsel; request for an adjournment was made as per Ext.P25. WPC No.22227/11 :6 : 9. Finally, hearing was scheduled on 05.08.2011 and in regard to what transpired on that day, it is averred in para 24 of the writ petition thus: “The petitioner’s counsel had appeared before the 1st respondent on 05.08.2011. But the 1st respondent stated that he was busy with other work and that he has authorized the Upper Division Clerk to prepare a note on the subject matter. The petitioner’s counsel was thus asked to apprise the Head Clerk about the issue. However, the head clerk who was assigned the above task insisted that the petitioner’s counsel give a sworn statement. When the counsel refused and pointed out that his duty was confirmed to answering the allegations in Ext.P12 on behalf of his client, the Head Clerk requested the counsel to provide a brief picture on the issue. The petitioner’s counsel had therefore briefly apprised the Head Clerk of the contentions in Ext.P22 statement. After the said exercise, an assistant in the office of the 1st respondent had written down the proceedings obtained the counsel’s signature. The counsel was thereafter informed by the Head Clerk further proceedings in the matter would be duly intimated. The 1st respondent had thus not heard the petitioner at all.” Ext.R1(c) is the statement of the counsel for the petitioner that was recorded on 05.08.2011. 10. According to the petitioner, on 12.08.2011 at about 1.00 O’clock in the afternoon, about 6 persons came to their property and affixed Ext.P26 order issued by the 1st respondent and Ext.P27 notice in Form CC of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules. Challenging Exts.P26 and P27, this writ petition was filed on 16.08.2011, the next court working day, and when the case came up for admission in the WPC No.22227/11 :7 : afternoon, after hearing the learned Government Pleader, the writ petition was disposed of relegating the petitioner to file appeal under Section 16 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and directing that the status quo in so far as the possession of the land in question shall be maintained and that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the land. 11. However, on 18.08.2011 respondents in the writ petition filed R.P.No.626/2011, producing Annexures 1 to 4, mahazar, photographs and receipt obtained by them and contending that by the time they were informed of the judgment, eviction proceeding initiated on 16.08.2011 was already completed and that possession of the property was taken over after observing all formalities. Accordingly, Review Petition was heard and by order dated 25.08.2011, the review was allowed. Subsequently, by order dated 25.08.2011, this court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to prepare an inventory of the movable articles of the petitioner that were available in the property. Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner visited the site and filed his report dated 02.09.2011, which is also taken on record. 12. Contentions raised by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner are mainly that the enquiry conducted by the 1st respondent was in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and the Rules and also the principles of natural justice. It was also WPC No.22227/11 :8 : contended that there was no circumstance justifying the invocation of power under Section 11(3) of the Act and Rule 13A of the Rules and that the order was implemented with undue haste as a result of which, the petitioner was deprived of its right to avail of even the statutory remedy of appeal. It was further contended that though by Ext.P26 order, recovery of 3.41 acres of land was ordered, an extent of 5.17 acres of land was resumed from the petitioner. He also contended that the findings regarding the Pattas are incorrect and illegal. Further, according to him, no part of the land was a puramboke, to invoke the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 13. The learned Special Government Pleader (Revenue) appeared on behalf of the respondents. According to the learned government pleader sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. It is stated that in compliance with Ext.P11 judgment in W.P.(C)No.25385/2010, which directed the respondents to finalise the proceeding within 2 weeks, Ext.P12 notice was issued requiring the petitioner to appear within 7 days. In Ext.P13 reply, petitioner asked for documents which were furnished by Ext.P19. Again by Ext.P21 the petitioner was asked to appear 09.12.2010, in response to which Ext.P22 was submitted. It is stated that on 09.12.2010 due to official commitments, the case had to be adjourned and that finally after WPC No.22227/11 :9 : several adjournments, counsel for the petitioner appeared on 05.08.2011. In so far as what transpired on 05.08.2011 and Ext.R1(c), the statement of the counsel for the petitioner are concerned, it is stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent that “the submissions were recorded as authorized by the Tahsildar and the same was ratified by the Tahsildar in the presence of the petitioner …… ……………………………. In any view of the matter the petitioner was given enough opportunity to adduce evidence to establish his title over the lands and the building in respect of which the stop memo was issued. The petitioner had submitted all his contentions and was also heard through his pleader”. It is stated that it was thereafter that Ext.P26 order and Ext.P27 form CC notice were issued and the possession of the land was taken over on 16.08.2011 as per Ext.R1(d) mahazar. Detailed averments have been made justifying the findings regarding the validity of the patta and the other conclusions in Ext.P26. In so far as the grievance of the petitioner that undue haste has been shown in the implementation of the order is concerned, reliance is placed on Section 11(3) of the Act and Rule 13A of the Rules framed there under. It is stated that the Government of Kerala was in an intensive drive to evict unauthorized encroachments in Munnar area and therefore powers under Rule 13A of the Rules were invoked and WPC No.22227/11 :10 : accordingly the petitioner was directed to vacate the land within 48 hours. An additional counter affidavit was also filed in order to substantiate the conclusions in Ext.P26 order. 14. I have considered the submissions made. 15. The findings in Ext.P26 order, reads thus: “1. Patta No.LA 71/72 is a Patta which cannot be issued at all, since the maximum limit of land that can be assigned to Sri. Sundararaj will be exceeding the limits prescribed under the Rules, as he was already assigned with 1.19 Acres of land as per LA 41/64. That the Patta has not been brought to Village Accounts, Patta is not entered in Village No.1 Account and Porampoke Register, the Patta is not assigned any Thandaper No. and tax is never levied in his name clearly supports the fact that Patta No.LA 71/72 is not issued. As Patta No.LA 71/72 is a non-existing assignment, Thandaper right of 0.8681 Hectares (2.14 acres) of land in Sy. No.87/1 of Chinnakkanal Village in possession of the part is declared irregular. The Thandaper Account No.3946 of Chinakkanal village stands cancelled to the extent and the property is declared to be Government land in unauthorized possession. Since ample opportunities for hearing has been provided to the party and the Government of Kerala is in an intensive drive to evict unauthorized encroachments in Munnar area, Section 13A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules 1958 is invoked and the party is directed to vacate the land within 48 Hours from the date and time of receipt of this order by any means of communication. 2. As the title relating to 0.7102 Hectares (1.75 Acres – consisting of 1.64 Acres in Sy.No.87/1 and 11 Cents in Sy. No.87/1/13) is held up in Vigilance Enquiry, all the dealings relating to the land and improvements therein are prohibited for the time being and the regularization of the possession will be considered on finalization of Vigilance Enquiry in VC 2/2008/ERK. Thandaper No.3946 of Chinnakkanal Village stands frozen to the extent. WPC No.22227/11 :11 : 3. Since title in respect of 5 Cents of land in Sy. No.87/1-1 is not traceable to any of the Pattas claimed, the same is declared Government property. Since ample opportunities for hearing has been provided to the party and the Government of Kerala is in an intensive drive to evict unauthorized encroachments in Munnar area, Section 13A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules 1958 is invoked and the party is directed to vacate the land within 48 hours from the date and time of receipt of this order by any means of communication. Thandaper No.3946 of Chinnakkanal Village stands cancelled to the extent. 4. 0.4952 Hectares (1.22 Acres) of land in Sy 87/1, which is also in unauthorized possession of the party and not supported by any documentary right, is declared as Government property. The same is ordered to be evicted invoking provisions of Section 13A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules 1957. The party is directed to vacate the land within 48 hours from the date and time of receipt of this order by any means of communication. 5. Admittedly, the construction is of a Resort. No provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Assignment Act 1960 permits construction of a commercial Resort in the land assigned under the said Act and Rules framed thereunder. As such, the occupiers have violated the conditions of assignment, which makes the assignment itself liable for cancellation. On this ground, as well as on the grounds described in Para 1 above, the application submitted by the party for releasing the stop – memos against constructions is hereby rejected. This is in compliance with orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala dated 12.08.2010 in W.P.(C) No.25385/2010.” 16. Having considered the rival submission made by both sides, this court is inclined to think that the main issues that arise for consideration are whether the enquiry that preceded Ext.P26 was properly conducted and whether the circumstances justified invocation WPC No.22227/11 :12 : of the powers under Section 11(3) of the Act and Rule 13A of the Rules. If findings on these questions are in favour of the petitioner, the enquiry will have to be conducted afresh. In such a case, the correctness of the findings regarding the genuineness of the pattas and the title of the petitioner or their predecessor over the land in question should be left open for consideration in the enquiry. 17. I shall first consider the question whether the enquiry under Section 11 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act was properly conducted. In order to answer this question, it is necessary to make a brief reference to the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 3 of the Act defines property of Government and as per Section 4, all unassessed Government lands are "Puramboke". Occupation of Government lands without permission has been prohibited under Section 5 and, Section 7 makes such occupation liable for the penalty provided therein. Section 11 (1) provides for summary eviction of unauthorised occupants and Sub Section (2) thereof prescribes the mode of eviction in such cases and Section 12 provides for prior notice to unauthorised occupants. 18. Section 11(1) and (2) of the Act, being relevant, are extracted below for easy reference; “11. Liability of unauthorised occupant to summary eviction, forfeiture of crops etc.—(1)