IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 OP.No. 18166 of 2002(K) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ERAYALEATH VEETTIL DAMODARAN, S/O. LATE M.P. CHERIYA RAMAN, AGED 53 YEARS, EDANAD P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.T.P.ELDHO RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H.SUB DIVISION, KANNUR. 4. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, THALASSERY. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 18166/2002. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF PARTITION DEED. EXT.P2 PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DT. 15-7-1976. EXT.P3 ORDER DT. 9-10-1986. EXT.P4 JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO. 16823/2000. EXT.P5 ORDER DT. 25-7-2001. EXT.P6 ORDER DT. 21-12-2001. EXT.P7 REVISION APPLICATION DT. 1-2-2002. EXT.P8 PROCEEDINGS DT. 1-6-2002. EXT.P9 ORDER DT. 18-6-2002. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 18166 of 2002 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 26th March, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Exts.P5, P6, P8 and P9 orders which are the original, appellate and revisional orders under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the Land Conservancy Act and the Rules for evicting him from certain lands in R.S.No. 55/5B on the ground that the land belonged to the PWD and the petitioner encroached into the same. After two original petitions and a contempt case, the matter was considered by the 3rd respondent who passed Ext. P5 order. Since the petitioner did not produce any document relating to R.S.No. 55/5B, the land was measured by the revenue authorities in the presence of the petitioner on 23-7-2001. On measurement, the Tahsildar, Kannur has reported as follows: “1. 1 acres 63 cents of land in R.S.No. 55/5B in Kunhimangalam Amsom Ernad Desom is Government Puramboke land and the records shows that the above land was handed over to PWD, on 12-1-1956. 2. On physical verification, all the survey markings in R.S.No. 55/5B which is Government land are existing in the land, and are intact. 3. Sri. E.V. Damodaran had encroached 2 acres and 35 cents of land in the R.S.No. 55/5B by way of constructing a house and construction of a foundation for a new house. 4. The PWD had utilised 1.05 acres of land, by excavating earth for National Highway and the above portion is marked is red colour in the survey plan enclosed. The illegally encroached portion of Government land has been marked in Green Colour. 5. The documents submitted by Revenue authorities are the Revenue record copy of FMB, true copy of a Register, the sketch showing the encroached portion of land and the plan showing boundaries of R.S.No. 55/5B measured. 6. On detailed verification of the above documents and on physical examination at site, it is categorically confirmed that Sri. O.P. No. 18166/2002 -: 2 :- E.V. Damodaran, Edanad, Kunhimangalam Post: Edat had encroached 2 acres 35 cents of land in R.S. No. 55/5B in Kunhimangalam Amsom, Edanad Desom of Kannur Taluk.” It is pursuant to the same, Ext. P P5 order has been passed directing the petitioner to vacate the properties encroached into by the petitioner. The petitioner's appeal was rejected by Ext. P6 order by the Assistant Collector, Thalasserry. The revision submitted by the petitioner before the District Collector, Kannur was rejected by Ext. P8 order. Thereafter, by Ext. P9, the 3rd respondent directed the petitioner to vacate the properties immediately. It is those orders, which are under challenge. 2. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property. But, Ext. P2, stated to be the title deed of the petitioner in respect of the property which is a certificate of purchase issued by the Land Tribunal (Land Reforms III), Payyannur, does not contain any land in Re-survey No. 55/5B but only refers to land in re-survey Nos. 55/5A, 55/1A and 55/1B. As is clear from Ext. P5, the petitioner did not produce any document in respect of the property in R.S.No. 55/5B and therefore the land was measured by the revenue authorities in the presence of the petitioner himself on 23-7-2001. On such measurement only it was found that the petitioner had encroached into 2 Acre 35 Cents in R.S. No. 55/5B. I do not find anything wrong with the orders impugned in this original petition. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/