Muralee Krishna, J.
The petitioner, who is a resident of Laksham Colony in KDH village of Munnar, filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Exts.P9, P10, P11 and P15 and quash the same so far as it is illegal and without considering the absolute right of the petitioner over his property;
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P13 and pass orders on it without delay;
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 7th respondent to consider Ext.P14 and pass orders on it without delay”.
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner is the owner in possession and enjoyment of 1.21 Ares (3 cents) of land along with a commercial building bearing Door No. X-726, comprised in Sy No.62/28A of KDH Village. Before 1998, the above-mentioned land and building were under the possession and enjoyment of P.M. Rajamony, who had purchased the same from M/s Tata Finlay Ltd. vide sale deed No.625/82 of S.R.O. Devikulam. The land was a parcel of land out of which 19.40 hectares were held by Tata Finlay under the Land Board Award of 1974 and the transfer deed of 381/1977 was executed between Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company and M/s Tata Finlay Company. The petitioner has paid basic tax on the property till 2016-2017. The Munnar Panchayat had assessed building tax for the building, and the petitioner has paid building tax till 2018. The building situated on the land was damaged, and the petitioner has started renovation of the building. Petitioner was of the bona fide belief that no renovation permit was required for the renovation of an existing building to which tax had already been paid. It was during the renovation work that the petitioner came to know that a renovation permit is required for the renovation of the building. The petitioner then submitted an application for a renovation permit before the 6th respondent, and the 6th respondent directed the petitioner to apply for a No Objection Certificate before the Revenue Divisional Officer Devikulam, and assured that after getting the NOC renovation permit will be issued. In pursuance of the direction of the 6th respondent, the petitioner had approached the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer with an application for NOC. While the matter stood so, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P9 notice under the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Land) Act, 1971 (‘KDH Act’ for short), calling upon the petitioner to produce all documents pertaining to the land within two days, failing which it was intimated that steps would be taken to evict him summarily. The petitioner has sent a reply to Ext.P9 notice on 04.12.2018 along with all documents relating to his property. On 23.10.2018, the 5th respondent affixed notice No.EV/93 dated 23.10.2018 in front of the building of the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has encroached the PWD land and constructed a building, and hence the action of the petitioner is illegal. On 04.12.2018, the petitioner received a communication from the 6th respondent stating that the panchayath has received a complaint that the petitioner has done illegal construction, and on enquiry, it is confirmed as correct, and the petitioner is required to remove the illegal construction. It was without considering the title of the petitioner over the property, the respondents categorised him as an encroacher and issued an eviction notice. Hence, the petitioner filed the writ petition.
3. The respondents 3 and 4 filed a counter affidavit dated 15.02.2019 opposing the relief sought in the writ petition and producing therewith Exts.R4(a) to R4(d) documents. To that counter affidavit, the petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 14.01.2025.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for the Munnar Grama Panchayat for the 6th respondent and the learned counsel for the additional 8th respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner obtained the property in question from M/s Tata Finlay Ltd. by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed No.845 of 1998 registered at S.R.O., Devikulam. By Ext. P3 judgment of the Munsiff Court, Devikulam, in O.S.No.165 of 1999 and in Ext.P4 judgment in A.S. No.21 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court Thodupuzha, the title of the petitioner over the property is confirmed. Though the issue was taken up before this Court in R.S.A. No.1 of 2006, by Ext.P5 judgment, this Court upheld the findings in Exts.P3 and P4 judgments. The petitioner had paid basic tax, and evidencing the same produced Ext.P6 tax receipt. The petitioner approached for a renovation permit for the building occupied by him when its roof was damaged. Since there was a delay in obtaining the permit, the petitioner started the renovation of the building. It is thereafter he received Ext.P10 prohibition order from the 7th respondent. The learned counsel vehemently submitted that, as per Section 6(1) of the KDH Act, the Collector shall cause the boundaries of each parcel of land, the possession of which has vested in the Government under sub-section (1) of Section 3, to be demarcated. As per Section 6(2) of the KDH Act, as soon as the completion of the demarcation as stipulated in Section 6(1), the Collector shall publish a notification prescribing the extent, boundaries and other particulars as may be prescribed of such land. The learned counsel submitted that in Ext.P12 list of land vested with the Government, the survey number of the property of the petitioner is not included. In such circumstances, the impugned orders under challenge in this writ petition cannot sustain as they were passed under the premise that the property is vested with the Government under Section 3(1) of the KDH Act. The learned counsel further submitted that the land in question is exempted from vesting as per Section 3(2) of the KDH Act.
6. The learned Senior Government Pleader argued that as per Ext.R4(a) basic tax register, the extent of property covered in Survey No.62/28A of KDH village is 60.87 acres and out of the said extent, 8.25 acres is under the possession of the Public Works Department even prior to the enactment of the KDH Act. After the notification under Section 6(2) of the KDH Act, a subdivision was effected in survey No.62/28A by adding a new subdivision as 62/28A-1. Since the parent survey number is 62/28A, the petitioner cannot claim exclusion of the land from the operation of the KDH Act, merely relying on Ext.P12 document. By pointing out Ext.P6 receipt, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that it is in respect of the land in KDH village that the special thandaper was assigned, and hence it is clear that the land is one leased out to the additional 8th respondent. The learned Senior Government Pleader would argue that under the provisions of the KDH Act, the subject property is vested with the Government, and it was leased out to the additional 8th respondent only for the purpose of agriculture. After considering the requirements of the Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company, the Land Board restored the entire land covered in Survey No.62/28A-1 to the additional 8th respondent. Ext.R4(c) notification published by the District Collector under Section 6(2) of the KDH Act on 15.02.1977 clearly points out the aforesaid facts regarding the restoration of property. Moreover, the lessee has no right to sell the property, which was restored under Section 4(4) of the KDH Act.
7. The learned counsel for the additional 8th respondent would submit that the right of the additional 8th respondent to alienate the property restored to it by the Land Board is evident from the judgment of this Court dated 30.06.2005 in W.A.No.224 of 2001.
8. The petitioner claims title over the land in question on the basis of Ext.P1 sale deed No.845 of 1998 registered at S.R.O., Devikulam. Admittedly, the land covered in Ext.P1 is the portion of the land restored to the additional 8th respondent by the Land Board on considering its application under Section 4 of the KDH Act. Though the learned counsel for the additional 8th respondent relied on the judgment dated 30.06.2005 of this Court in W.A.No. 224 of 2001 to contend that the right of the company to alienate the land is established by the said judgment, while going through the aforesaid judgment, we notice that the issue considered in that writ appeal pertained to unauthorised constructions carried out by the appellant therein on the river bank. In that judgment, the Division Bench of this Court considered only the factual matrix of that particular case, and this Court did not give any finding regarding the right of the additional 8th respondent to alienate the property. The division Bench observed in that judgment that this Court is not proposing to go into the disputed questions of law and facts raised in that case. In such circumstances, the 8th respondent cannot rely on the judgment in W.A.No.224 of 2021 to claim that the right of the additional 8th respondent to alienate the property restored to it by the Land Board under Section 4 of the KDH Act is established by the said judgment.
9. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the KDH Act, based on which the arguments are addressed by the parties to this writ petition, read thus:
“3. Vesting of possession of certain lands.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any contract or other document, but subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), with effect on and from the appointed day, the possession of all lands situate in the Kannan Devan Hills village in the Devikulam taluk of the Kottayam district shall stand transferred to and vest in the Government free from all encumbrances, and the right, title and interest of the lessees and all other persons, including rights of mortgagees and holders of encumbrances, in respect of such lands, shall stand extinguished.
(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply in respect of-
(a) plantations, other than plantations belonging to trespassers ;
(b) buildings, other than buildings belonging to trespassers, and lands appurtenant to, and necessary for the convenient enjoyment or use of, such buildings;
(c) play-grounds and burial and burning grounds; and
(d) lands in the possession of the Central Government or any State Government or the Kerala State Electricity Board.
(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply in respect of so much extent of land held by a lessee under his personal cultivation as is within the ceiling limit applicable to him under any law for the time being in force or any building or structure standing thereon or appurtenant thereto”.
4. Restoration of possession of lands in certain cases.
(1) Where the person in possession of a plantation considers that any land, the possession of which has vested in the Govern-ment under sub-section (1) of section 3,—
(a) is necessary for any purpose ancillary to the cultivation of plantation crops in such plantation or for the preparation of the same for the market; or
(b) being agricultural land interspersed within the boundaries of the area cultivated with plantation crops, is necessary for the protection and efficient management of such cultivation; or
(c) is necessary for the preservation of an existing plantation, he may, within sixty days from the date of publication of this Act in the Gazette, apply to the Land Board for the restoration of possession of such land.
(2) An application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form as may be prescribed.
(3) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the Land Board shall, after giving the applicant an oppor-tunity of being heard and after such inquiry as it deems necessary, by order determine the extent of land necessary for the purpose or purposes specified in the application, and such order shall be final.
(4) As soon as may be after determining the extent of land necessary for the purpose or purposes specified in the application under sub-section (1), the Land Board shall cause such land to be demarcated and put the applicant in posses-sion of such land.
(5) Any person put in possession of any land under sub-section (4) shall be entitled to possess that land on the same terms and subject to the same conditions on or subject to which he was holding such land immediately before the appointed day”.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
“6. Demarcation of boundaries. - (1) As soon as may be after the appointed day, the Collector shall cause the boundaries of each parcel of land, the possession of which has vested in the Government under sub-section (1) of section 3, to be demarcated. (2)As soon as may be after the demarcation of the boundaries of a parcel of land under sub-section (1), the Collector shall publish a notification in such manner as may be prescribed specifying the extent, identity and such other particulars as may be prescribed of such land.
(3) Where the possession of a portion of a parcel of land is restored under section 4, or the alteration of the boundaries of a parcel of land is necessary consequent on the order of the Land Board under section 7, the Collector shall cause the boundaries of the remaining portion of such parcel of land or such parcel of land, as the case may be, to be re- demarcated and shall also publish a notification of such re-demarcation under sub-section (2)”.
(underline supplied)
10. The land in question in the instant case is admittedly situated within the area wherein the KDH Act is notified as applicable by the Government. It is restored to the additional 8th respondent by the Land Board. The reading of the above extracted provisions make it clear that only a land vested with the Government under section 3(1) of the KDH Act can be restored under Section 4 of the said Act, for the limited purposes mentioned in that Section. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the land is exempted from vesting under Section 3 (1) of the KDH Act, and it falls under the category of exempted land under Section 3(2) of the said Act, cannot be accepted.
11. While coming to the contention of the petitioner regarding non inclusion of the survey number of the petitioner property in Ext.P12 list of land vested with the Government published in accordance with section 6(2) of the KDH Act, it is relevant to note that this Court in Rajendran S. v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC Online 1181] considered the question of omission of certain survey number from the subsequent demarcation notification issued by the Government and held that all lands in Kannan Devan Hills Village automatically vested with the Government on 21.01.1971 under the KDH Act, except those specifically exempted, and omission of survey numbers from the subsequent demarcation notification does not take away this automatic vesting.
12. It is also pertinent to note that by the order dated 21.01.2010 in W.P.(C)No.1801 of 2010, this Court prohibited construction activity in the Munnar area without a No Objection Certificate from the revenue department and from the Grama Panchayat. In the instant case, the petitioner had started the construction without obtaining a No Objection Certificate or permission from the Grama Panchayat. In such circumstances, we find no illegality in Ext.P9 notice issued by the Tahsildar, and Ext.P10 stop memo issued by the Village Officer, to the petitioner. From the pleadings and materials, we notice that there is a further allegation against the petitioner by the authorities that he carried out the construction by encroaching on the PWD land and without obtaining permission from the Panchayat. Ext.P11 notice issued by the 5th respondent Assistant Engineer of PWD, and Ext.P15 notice issued by the 6th respondent secretary of the Munnar Grama Panchayat, which are under challenge in this writ petition, are based on the said allegation. Now, Ext.P14 fresh application for NOC submitted by the petitioner is pending before the 7th respondent Village Officer, Munnar. Considering all these facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the District Collector, Idukki, to conduct an enquiry in the matter and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of without expressing anything on the legal and factual contentions raised by the parties, directing the petitioner to produce all relevant documents relied by him, before the 2nd respondent District Collector, Idukki, within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and on such production, the 2nd respondent District Collector, Idukki shall conduct necessary enquiry regarding genuineness of the title of the petitioner over the property in question, and pass appropriate orders regarding the same, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the documents from the petitioner. Based on the findings of the 2nd respondent District Collector, the 7th respondent Village Officer, Munnar, shall pass necessary orders in Ext.P14 application dated 03.12.2018 submitted by the petitioner for No Objection Certificate. Similarly, the further steps to be taken in Ext.P15 notice issued by the 6th respondent secretary of the Munnar Grama Panchayat shall also be decided based on the findings of the 2nd respondent District Collector, Idukki, as directed above.
 |
This Product is Licensed to , |