JUDGMENT : Annie John, J. The Plaint schedule property was assigned to the Kanikar by the Maharaja of Travancore by a Royal Neet. From the Kanikar, the father of the appellants Varkki Varkki got this property and he cleared the forest and was enjoying it. While so, a provisional patta was issued to Varkki Varkki in proceedings P.C.7/66 as patta No.3197. The said Varkki Varkki constructed buildings, a well and also planted rubber, coconut trees etc. in the plaint schedule property. Subsequent to that, he had executed a gift deed No.455 of 1971 and another gift deed No.3751 of 1978 in favour of the appellants, his children. Thereafter, it was learnt that the patta issued to Varkki Varkki, the predecessor of the appellants was cancelled due to the influence of the 6th respondent, stating that the proceedings for issuance of patta to the predecessor of appellants was against the provisions of Kerala Land Assignment Act. In fact the appellants have perfected title over the plaint schedule property by adverse possession and limitation and stating all these facts appellants filed a suit before the Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara as O.S. No.230/81 which was partly decreed. 2. The appellants, after lapse of 36 years, having perfected their title by adverse possession and limitation, approached the District Collector, Trivandrum under Mass Contact Programme in the year 2002 for the granting of patta. On hearing, 2nd the respondent decided to recover possession of 3.10 Acres of land, which was admittedly enjoyed by the appellants and their predecessor in interest. Against the said order, appellants preferred a writ petition before the learned single Judge, which was dismissed. Highly aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge, this writ appeal has been preferred. 3. According to them, the learned single Judge has taken a view that in an appeal filed in 1997, the patta issued to the predecessor of the appellants was cancelled. It is after the cancellation, that the suit was filed with the government on the party array. The trial court specifically found that the property in possession of the appellant's predecessor has to be construed as an occupation with effect from 28.09.1966. The said permissive occupation stands cancelled with effect from 27.07.1979. Thereafter the possession became adverse in nature as far as respondents are concerned. The trial court specifically found that the property in possession of the appellant's predecessor has to be construed as an occupation with effect from 28.09.1966. The said permissive occupation stands cancelled with effect from 27.07.1979. Thereafter the possession became adverse in nature as far as respondents are concerned. However, no steps have been taken to evict the appellants by resorting to the due process of law as directed by the learned Munsiff, in O.S.No.230/1981, the learned single Judge ought to have considered that immediately after the cancellation of patta, the continuation of the possession of land by the appellants can be treated as adverse from the very inception. On the other hand, from 1966 onwards, the appellants and their father Varkki Varkki are in uninterrupted possession of the plaint scheduled property. The learned Judge ought to have found that respondents 1 to 4 had no impediment in taking steps to evict the appellants and after the lapse of 50 years, respondents have no authority to evict the appellants from the plaint schedule property. The District Collector or Revenue Authorities declined to give patta to the appellants. The limit fixed for assignment of land came into effect only in the year 1968. Further, certain conditions came into effect as per G.O.(P) No.331/1968. It is an admitted fact that appellants' predecessor got patta as per P.C.7/66. The number of patta is 3197. Apart of that, Ext.R6(1) document is a communication produced in the counter affidavit, which is a document obtained after the filing of the suit and apart from that, that is only a communication based on a petition dated nil. Regarding Ext.R6(2), the District Collector has passed only an order remanding the question of assignment of three acres and ten cents of land to the petitioner's predecessor for a fresh enquiry. The 6th respondent has not produced any document to establish that he is having any right over the property, which is now in the possession of the appellant. The claim of possession of the 6th respondent has been rightly rejected by a competent civil court and the decree has become final. The respondents 6 to 10 have no right in the property. Therefore, the appellants pray for setting aside the judgment dated 20.06.2014 in W.P.(C).No.27313/2007 of this Court. The claim of possession of the 6th respondent has been rightly rejected by a competent civil court and the decree has become final. The respondents 6 to 10 have no right in the property. Therefore, the appellants pray for setting aside the judgment dated 20.06.2014 in W.P.(C).No.27313/2007 of this Court. Now, the question to be considered is whether the finding entered by the single Judge in the writ petition is to be interfered or not. 4. The writ appeal has been filed aggrieved by the judgment in W.P.(C).No.27313 of 2007 (B) filed challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner. Ext.P5 is the true copy of the revision petition filed before the first respondent under rule 21(9) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. Ext.P6 is the order which would show that out of 6.20 acres, an extent of 3.10 acres in Sy.No.753/2/55/1 of old Kunnathunkal village was allotted to Raman Ayyappan and remaining 3.10 acres of land belongs to one Krishnan. Later, Sri. Varkki Varkki had obtained the land held by Krishnan and along with that, the land belonging to Sri. Raman Ayyappan also. He also managed to obtain patta for the entire 6.20 acres of land assigned to him, which is against the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. The same was cancelled by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trivandrum in accordance with the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. 5. In the meantime, while the case was pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trivandrum, Sri. Varkki Varkki illegally executed a document for the entire land in favour of the revision petitioner and also effected mutation. It is clear that assignment of the entire extent of land measuring 6.20 acres to a single person is against the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trivandrum is correct and it was upheld with a direction to the Tahsildar, Neyyattinkara, to take appropriate steps to recover possession of land measuring 3.10 acres which was originally under the possession and enjoyment of the father of the appellants. Exts.P1 and P2 are the two gift deeds, executed by Sri. Varkki Varkki in favour of the appellants and the appellants on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2 gift deeds, stated that he has obtained ownership and possession of 1.45 acres of land in Sy.No.753/2-55-1-1 (Resy. Exts.P1 and P2 are the two gift deeds, executed by Sri. Varkki Varkki in favour of the appellants and the appellants on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2 gift deeds, stated that he has obtained ownership and possession of 1.45 acres of land in Sy.No.753/2-55-1-1 (Resy. No.84/4), 1.45 acres of property in Sy.No.753/2-55-1-1 and 753/2-55-1-3 (Re.sy.No.84/3) and 20 cents of property in Sy.No.84/1 of Amboori village. The definite case of the appellants is that the plaint schedule property as stated above was in the possession of Sri. Varkki Varkki and he has obtained provisional patta on the basis of a Proceedings No.P.C 7/66. As the respondents 3 to 9 disputed that their predecessor deceased Raman Ayyappan had right of the property, the appellants' father Sri. Varkki Varkki instituted O.S.No.230/1981 before the Additional Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara and it was decreed in part whereby the defendants 6 to 10 therein were restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, committing mischief therein and interfering with the possession of the appellants/plaintiff over the plaint schedule property, until they would be evicted by due process of law. In fact, the respondents or the appellants have not challenged Ext.P3 judgment. Subsequent to that, the respondents have initiated proceedings for cancellation of patta before the Revenue authorities and on the strength of Ext.P4 order, the District Collector has found that the assignment of land measuring 6.20 acres to a single person is against the provisions of the Kerala land Assignment Rules and the Tahsildar, Neyyattinkara has directed to take appropriate steps to recover possession of land measuring 3.10 acres of land, which was held under the possession of the appellants. Again, the appellants have filed a revision challenging Exts.P3 and P4 orders before the first respondent under Rule 21(9) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. Accordingly, the Land Revenue Commissioner has passed an order Ext.P6 upholding the finding entered by the District Collector. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that the appellant and his predecessor Sri. Varkki Varkki had perfected title by adverse possession over the plaint schedule property so that the respondents have no authority to evict them from the plaint schedule property. Further it was argued that properties in possession of appellants' predecessor is to be construed as an occupation with effect from 28.09.1966. Varkki Varkki had perfected title by adverse possession over the plaint schedule property so that the respondents have no authority to evict them from the plaint schedule property. Further it was argued that properties in possession of appellants' predecessor is to be construed as an occupation with effect from 28.09.1966. Thereafter the possession became adverse in nature as far as respondents are concerned. 7. Again it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the moment next after the cancellation of patta, the continuation of the land by appellants can be treated as adverse from the very inception. Appellants are in uninterrupted possession of the properties since 1966. No steps taken by authorities to evict appellants from properties. The 6th respondent did not produce any documents to establish his title over the properties. 8. In this connection, we have gone through the judgment in O.S.No.230/81 and in paragraph 8 of the judgment, it is observed that Exts.R1 and R2 orders (copy of order No.4/77 of Sub Collector, Trivandrum, copy of order No.D.Dis-42438/78/J3, from the Board of Revenue (LR), Trivandrum) would show that the statutory period was not completed. On that ground also, it is held that, the plaintiffs, who are the appellants herein did not perfect their title by adverse possession. It was also observed that in order to sustain the plea of adverse possession, all the ingredients necessary to acquire adverse possession were not pleaded and proved. It has further observed in Ext.P3 that by granting of patta, the possession of Sri. Varkki Varkki became permissive. It was the finding entered by the lower court that the appellants have not acquired title by adverse possession and limitation. The judgment was passed on 25.09.1990. It was further observed that a provisional patta was issued as per Proceedings No.PC.7/66 as per patta No.3197 to Sri. Varkki Varkki subject to certain conditions. 9. It was also stated that as per Rule 5(b)(ii) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, “the maximum limit to be assigned for cultivation is 3 acres of dry land in hilly tracts”. As admitted by the appellants, the predecessor Sri. Varkki Varkki has obtained provisional patta in the year 1966 for nearly 6 acres 20 cents of land and it was assigned by the Government as per patta No. 3197. This fact has not been denied by the appellants. 10. As admitted by the appellants, the predecessor Sri. Varkki Varkki has obtained provisional patta in the year 1966 for nearly 6 acres 20 cents of land and it was assigned by the Government as per patta No. 3197. This fact has not been denied by the appellants. 10. Section 8(3) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 reads thus : 8. Conditions of assignment on registry:-The registry shall be liable to be cancelled for contravention of the provisions in 2[sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2)]. The registry may be cancelled also, if it is found that it was grossly inequitable or was made under a mistake of facts or owing to misrepresentation of facts or in excess of the limits of the powers delegated to the assigning authority or that there was an irregularity in the procedure. In the event of cancellation of the registry, the assignee shall not be entitled to compensation for any improvements he may have made on the land. The authority competent to order such cancellation shall be the authority which granted the registry, or one superior to it; Provided the no registry of land shall be cancelled without giving the party or parties affected thereby, a reasonable opportunity of being heard: [Provided further that no assignment of Land shall be cancelled if the annual family income of the transferee occupant does not exceed Rs. 10,000 (Rupees Ten thousand only) and who does not own or possess any landed property, anywhere in the State; Provided also that in the case of a transfer of Land covered by the above Proviso the assignee shall not be eligible for further assignment of Land anywhere in the State]. 11. It was also observed that the orders, if any, passed by the concerned authority can be challenged as per Section 8(6) of the Land Assignment Act. 12. In the meanwhile Mr. Varkki Varkki filed O.S.No.230/1981 seeking such injunction against respondents. After taking evidence, the learned Munsiff has decreed the suit in part and restrained the respondents 4 to 6 from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or committing any mischief or entertaining the possession of the appellants over the plaint schedule property until they are evicted by due process of law. 13. After taking evidence, the learned Munsiff has decreed the suit in part and restrained the respondents 4 to 6 from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or committing any mischief or entertaining the possession of the appellants over the plaint schedule property until they are evicted by due process of law. 13. Now the case advanced by the writ appellant is that since the Revenue authorities have not taken any steps to evict the appellants from the plaint schedule property they are not entitled to take any steps, as the appellants have perfected their title by adverse possession and limitation. 14. In this connection, it is very important to look into the decree passed by the Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara on 25.09.1990 wherein it has held that the appellants have failed to establish the title acquired by adverse possession and limitation. It is necessary to note that the appellants or the respondents have not filed any appeal from the finding entered by the Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara in O.S.No.230/81. Prior to passing of Ext.P3 judgment, the provisional patta that stood in the name of the deceased Varkki Varkki was cancelled as per Exts.P4, P5 and P6 finding that the assignment of land in the year 1960 was effected not in accordance with provisions of Land Assignment Rules. 15. The above said Varkki Varkki has managed to get patta for the entire 6.20 acres of land assigned to him which is against the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. The same was cancelled by Revenue Divisional Officer, Trivandrum in accordance with KLA rules. 16. While the above said matter was pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trivandrum, Sri.Varkki Varkki had executed gift deed for the entire land in favour of the petitioner/appellants and also effected mutation. 17. It is also held in Ext.P6 that assignment of an entire extent of land measuring 6.20 acres to a single person is against the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. According to the District Collector, the appellants have possessed 6.20 acres of property illegally and ordered to recover 3.10 acres of land from the possession of the appellants. The 6th respondent has filed a counter in the writ petition contending that the father of the appellants did not have any lawful possession or title over the plaint schedule properties. According to him, the execution of deeds in favour of the writ appellants is illegal and invalid. The 6th respondent has filed a counter in the writ petition contending that the father of the appellants did not have any lawful possession or title over the plaint schedule properties. According to him, the execution of deeds in favour of the writ appellants is illegal and invalid. According to the 6th respondent, the appellants' predecessor Sri. Varkki Varkki and appellants were only trespassers on the plaint scheduled property. Since the patta No.3197 issued in the name of the father of writ appellants was found illegal, it was cancelled by the Revenue Authorities. 18. As per Ext.P3 judgment in O.S.No.230/1981 of the First Additional Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara defendants 6 to 10 (respondents 6 to 10 in the writ appeal) were restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, committing any waste therein and interfering with the possession of the appellants over plaint schedule property until they are evicted by due process of law. It was also contended that the assignments of land in question in favour of respondent's father Raman Ayyappan was suppressed by the appellant while applying for patta. It was also stated that the respondent's father late Raman Ayyappan was a freedom fighter, accordingly, 3 acres and 10 cents of property comprised in Sy.No.753/2/55/1 of old Kunnathunkal village was allotted to him on Kuthakapattam during the year 1950-1951 by the Government of Kerala. Ext.R6(1) was produced, which is a true copy of the Government Order concerning the grant of the above said Kuthakapattam as per Ext.R6(1), the property is situated in 6th Amboori village of Neyyattinkara Taluk. The father of the respondent was allotted 3.10 acres of land on one side and 3.10 acres on the other side was allotted to Mr. Krishnan. The petitioners' father Sri.Varkki Varkki had taken possession of the property which was held by Mr. Krishnan. Subsequent to that, he has filed Puthuval case No.7/1966 and he claimed possession over the entire plaint scheduled properties having an extent of 6.20 acres comprising in Sy.No.753/2/55/1 of old Kunnathunkal village. He succeeded in getting patta over the entire 6 acres and 20 cents of land covered by the above said survey number. In the proceeding, the said Raman Ayyappan or Krishnan were not parties. He succeeded in getting patta over the entire 6 acres and 20 cents of land covered by the above said survey number. In the proceeding, the said Raman Ayyappan or Krishnan were not parties. It was also evident from the records that Raman Ayyappan filed L.A.No.4/1977 before the R.D.O., Thiruvananthapuram and on hearing both sides, the RDO, Thiruvananthapuram has cancelled the provisional patta issued in favour of Varkki Varkki with respect to the plaint schedule property. Ext.R6(2) is the order passed by the Sub Collector, Trivandrum in L.A.No.4/77. Against the said order, appellants have filed a revision before the Board of revenue and after hearing, the Board of Revenue has passed an order dated 27.07.1979, dismissing the revision petition filed by appellants. The said order is produced as Ext.R6(3). Thereafter, Sri. Raman Ayyappan has filed several representations before the Revenue authorities. On the strength of that, the Tahsildar, Neyyatinkara has issued a notice to Mr. Varkki Varkki asking him to surrender the patta obtained from the Revenue department stating that Sri. Varkki Varkki has obtained patta illegally and subsequent to that, he had executed gift deeds in favour of the appellants. It has also turned out that gift deeds were was executed, while the revision petition was pending before the Revenue Board against the order of the Sub Collector (R.D.O) cancelling the patta. According to the respondent, due to financial problems, he applied for legal aid to challenge the decree in O.S.No.230/1981 before the Kerala State Legal Aid and Advice Board. He received a letter dated 18.11.1992 from KSLA & AB advising him to approach the Government for reddressal of his grievances and a true copy of the above letter is produced and marked as Ext.R6(4). Later, appellants moved before the District collector, Thiruvananthapuram by filing a revision petition against the Tahsildar's order cancelling the patta on the basis of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No.497/05H. By an order dated 28.06.2005 passed in proceedings No.D.Dis/49114/03/G6, the District Collector directed the Tahsildar, Neyyattinkara to take appropriate steps to recover possession of the land measuring 3.10 acres from the petitioners, which was originally in the possession of Raman Ayyappan. A true copy of the order of the District Collector dated 28.06.2005 is produced and marked as Ext.R6(5). Thereafter, the respondent was constrained to move this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.4439/07C to direct the Revenue authorities to implement Ext.R6(5) order. A true copy of the order of the District Collector dated 28.06.2005 is produced and marked as Ext.R6(5). Thereafter, the respondent was constrained to move this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.4439/07C to direct the Revenue authorities to implement Ext.R6(5) order. By the judgment dated 09.02.2007, this Court has disposed of the above mentioned writ petition directing the Tahsildar, Neyyattinkara Taluk to give effect to Ext.P5 order therein, if the same has obtained finality. A true copy of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No.4439/2007C is produced and marked as Ext.R6(6). As per the judgment in O.S.No.230/81, the Government was restrained from evicting the appellants from the plaint schedule property without resorting due process of law. This judgment has become final. The appellants or the respondents have not filed any appeal from the findings entered in O.S.No.230/81. There was a finding in the judgment in O.S.No.230/81 that the appellant has not perfected any title by adverse possession and limitation over the plaint schedule property. In order to sustain a plea of adverse possession all the ingredients necessary to constitute adverse possession must be pleaded and proved. But the ingredients of adverse possession are neither pleaded nor proved in this case. By granting of Ext.A6 patta, the possession of Mr. Varkki Varkki became permissive and it was further held that Exts.B1 and B2 orders would clearly show that the statutory period was not completed. On that ground also plaintiffs did not perfect their right by adverse possession. Against this finding, the appellants have not preferred any appeal. Since these findings stand unchallenged, the appellant is estopped from taking the same plea in the writ petition or in the appeal stating that respondents have no right to evict them from the plaint schedule property. The definite case of the respondents was that the appellants' predecessor Mr. Varkki Varkki had never acquired title over 6.20 acres of land. In fact, he was in possession of 6.20 acres of land. Since the provisional patta was issued in favour of Varkki Varkki for 6.20 acres of land in violation of the provisions of the Land Assignment Rules, the said patta was cancelled by the Revenue authorities through appropriate proceedings in the year 1977. 19. In fact, he was in possession of 6.20 acres of land. Since the provisional patta was issued in favour of Varkki Varkki for 6.20 acres of land in violation of the provisions of the Land Assignment Rules, the said patta was cancelled by the Revenue authorities through appropriate proceedings in the year 1977. 19. It is held in Izarul Islam v. State of Assam and others (2016 KHC 4290) that, the plaintiff in that case brought an exhibit on record to claim that his grandfather was paying Touzi revenue to the Government with respect to the suit land. In that event, the possession of his grandfather was a permissive one and not adverse. The permissive occupier cannot acquire right, title and interest with respect to a land for long possession unless and until title vests on him in any of the recognised means of transfer of title or by settlement by the Government under the provisions of law. 20. In this case, the disputed land has been recorded in the name of the Government and the same is the exclusive property of the Government. The father of the appellant had no absolute right over the land as patta was cancelled. So, the transfer effected by the gift deed is void. The appellant was in possession of the land; but State is the paramount owner of the land. Further, there is no material on record that the appellant's predecessor, Varkki Varkki has acquired title by way of adverse possession. Mere possession of the suit property for any length of time is not enough to give rise to a case of acquisition of title by way of adverse possession. 21. It is held in Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan and Ors. [ AIR 2009 SC 103 ] that “a plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession”. 22. It is also held that “the law of adverse possession which ousts an owner on the basis of inaction within limitation is irrational, illogical and wholly disproportionate. The law as it exists is extremely harsh for the true owner and a windfall for a dishonest person who had illegally taken possession of the property of the true owner. The law ought not to benefit a person who in a clandestine manner takes possession of the property of the owner in contravention of law. There is, therefore, an urgent need of fresh look regarding the law on adverse possession”. 23. In T.Anjanappa and Others v. Somalingappa and Another [ (2006) 7 SCC 570 ] it has been held that a “person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his title was hostile to the real owner and amounted to denial of his title to the property claimed. The court further observed that the classical requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession are that such possession in denial of the true owner's title must be peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be open and hostile enough to be capable of being known by the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possession actually informing the real owner of the former's hostile action. 24. Ext.P3 judgment was passed by the Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara on 27.09.1990. In fact the suit was filed for permanent prohibitory injunction. In that case, the appellants had prayed that they had perfected title over the plaint schedule property by adverse possession and limitation. Therefore, the appellants prayed for restraining the respondents 1 to 4 from evicting the appellants from assigning the right to respondents 5 and 6. There is a definite finding in judgment in O.S.No.230/1981 that the appellants have not perfected title by adverse possession by limitation. In fact it was found that the possession of Sri. Varkki Varkki over the plaint schedule property was permissive and a provisional patta was issued in his favour and Exts. There is a definite finding in judgment in O.S.No.230/1981 that the appellants have not perfected title by adverse possession by limitation. In fact it was found that the possession of Sri. Varkki Varkki over the plaint schedule property was permissive and a provisional patta was issued in his favour and Exts. A1 and A2 gift deeds were not legal and valid. 25. It was also further argued by the respondents that as per Rule 5(b)(ii) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, the maximum limit to be assigned for a cultivation is 4 acres of dry land in hilly tracts and in violation of the provisions as stated above, the Revenue authorities have issued a provisional patta for 6 acres and 20 cents of property in favour of the appellants' father. 26. As per the Settlement Scheme patta Rules, Section 12 says that “in cases where registry is made subject to survey and demarcation of the extent assigned, a provisional patta shall be issued in the first instance, pending such survey and demarcation, and a regular patta issued after survey and demarcation are completed. Until the issue of regular patta, the registry shall be treated as provisional”. 27. Here in this case, the provisional patta was given to the petitioners' father Sri. Varkki Varkki. Before issuing a regular patta it was cancelled by the registry itself finding that the petitioners' father Sri. Varkki Varkki had obtained the provisional patta in respect of 6.20 acres of land illegally against the provisions of the Land Assignment Act. Assignment of land in hilly area is governed by Rule 8 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules 1964. In this case, the appellants' father Sri. Varkki Varkki had obtained provisional patta with respect to the 6.10 acres of property out of which 6th respondent's father had obtained 3.10 acres of land and for that property Sri. Varkki Varkki had obtained provisional patta and this fact has already been confirmed in O.S.No.230/1981 whereby it was found that the petitioners' father Sri. Varkki Varkki never acquired title over the property by adverse possession and limitation. This fact has not been challenged by the said Varkki Varkki. Moreover, this question of law will not be considered in parallel proceedings also. 28. Varkki Varkki never acquired title over the property by adverse possession and limitation. This fact has not been challenged by the said Varkki Varkki. Moreover, this question of law will not be considered in parallel proceedings also. 28. In Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil and others v. Balwant alias Balasaheb Babusaheb Patil [ AIR 1995 SC 895 ], it has been held that adverse possession means a hostile assertion i.e., a possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner. Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, burden is on the person who claims ownership of suit land affirmatively. A person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e., the possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. 29. In this case, a competent civil court has already heard and decided the issue against the appellant and the matter has attained finality. So, he cannot raise a claim of adverse possession and limitation in a subsequent parallel proceedings by filing a writ petition before this Court. Therefore, we find that the appellants herein have failed to establish the title over the property in respect of which the provisional patta was issued by the Government. 30. As per Rule 8(3) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, the patta is liable to be cancelled, if it is found that the registry was made by misrepresentation of facts or it was grossly inequitable. It is true that as per the judgment in O.S.No.230/81 there was a direction that the appellants, who are in possession shall not be evicted without resorting the due process of law. It has also turned out from Ext.R6(2) that the patta was cancelled long before the institution of the suit. According to the respondents, the appellant has not sought for a relief of declaration that the cancellation of the patta was illegal and not sustainable in law. The appellants' counsel has attempted to bring out that the entire extent of property having 6.20 cents is in possession of the predecessor of the appellant i.e. Sri. Varkki Varkki and as per the gift deeds Exts.A1 and A2, the appellants acquired title over the plaint schedule property. The appellants' counsel has attempted to bring out that the entire extent of property having 6.20 cents is in possession of the predecessor of the appellant i.e. Sri. Varkki Varkki and as per the gift deeds Exts.A1 and A2, the appellants acquired title over the plaint schedule property. It has also come out that the Revenue authorities have by mistakenly passed an order in favour of the appellants' predecessor and granted a provisional patta, which was subsequently cancelled by the Revenue authorities. In fact the appellants and their predecessor Sri. Varkki Varkki were entitled to have only 3 acres and 10 cents of property and moreover, as per the provisions as contemplated under the Land Assignment Rules, only 3 acres of property shall be assigned in favour of one person. Even though the appellants have approached the civil court seeking permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the State for initiating any steps to evict the appellants from the plaint schedule property and that prayer was rejected by the court below and restrained other respondent from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and committing any mischief. The decree was passed restraining the state from forcefully evicting the appellants from the plaint schedule property without resorting the due process of law. This decree has not been challenged by the appellants. Therefore, they cannot raise the same claim over the plaint schedule property and they are estopped from raising the same through a parallel proceeding by filing the writ original petition also. 31. This decree has not been challenged by the appellants. Therefore, they cannot raise the same claim over the plaint schedule property and they are estopped from raising the same through a parallel proceeding by filing the writ original petition also. 31. Rule 5 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 deals with the maximum limit to be assigned for cultivation and it reads thus: "5.Maximum limits to be assigned for cultivation.-(1) The extent of land that shall be registered in favour of a single family for personal cultivation by members of the family shall not ordinarily exceed- (a) in the case of unoccupied lands, one acre of land whether wet or dry, in the plains and one acre of wet land or three acres of dry land in hilly tracts; (b) in the case of lands held on lease whether current or time expired or by way of encroachment not considered objectionable,- (i) where there are no valuable improvements effected on the land by the occupant, one acre of land, whether wet or dry, in the plains and one acre of wet land or three acres of dry land in hilly tracts; (ii) where there are valuable improvements effected on the land by the occupant, two acres of land wet or dry in the plains and two acres, of wet land or four acres of dry land in hilly tracts;" 32. The appellant challenges Ext.P6 order passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner and the main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that Ext.P6 order was passed without assigning any reasons. He has brought to the notice of this Court a decision in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India [ AIR 1990 SC 1984 ]. 33. In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India [ AIR 1990 SC 1984 ], it is held that “an administrative authority, exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision, except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication. It is further held that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutory purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and assures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It is further held that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutory purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and assures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. Therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact that whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review”. 34. We have perused Ext.P6 order and found that the Land Revenue Commissioner evaluated the entire matter in detail and observed as follows: “Rule V of KLA rules provides that the maximum area of dry land that can be assigned to a single family is 4 acres in hilly tracts. In this case petitioners' father Sri. Varkki Varkki managed to get patta over 6.20 acres, which resulted in cancellation of patta issued to Sri. Varkki Varkki. The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelling the patta was upheld by the District Collector, according to provisions of law. The civil court has not declared any title over any party. While decreeing O.S.No.230/1981 the Hon'ble Munsiff Court passed a decree granting injunction and at the same time rejected the claim of adverse possession raised by the petitioners. Hence the process of cancellation of patta and other proceedings are not against law. But strictly according to the provisions of law, the impugned order was passed by the District Collector, after considering all aspects including the decision of the Civil Court. The Hon'ble Munsiff Court did not declare title of the petitioners over the above mentioned property. The order cancelling the patta is according to provisions of law”. 35. The operative portion of Ext.P6 reads thus: “After examining the records it is found that the above points raised by the revision petitioner have been considered in detail in the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and later by the District Collector. The assignment of pattayam in 1966 itself was done in an irregular manner. Hence the order of cancellation of pattayam issued thereafter is in order. The revision petition is rejected.” 36. Ext.P6 order was passed after recording the reasons. Hence we find that the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant is without any merits. 37. The assignment of pattayam in 1966 itself was done in an irregular manner. Hence the order of cancellation of pattayam issued thereafter is in order. The revision petition is rejected.” 36. Ext.P6 order was passed after recording the reasons. Hence we find that the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant is without any merits. 37. In A. Yesuratnam v. Church of South India, [1983 KLT SN 46 (C.No.73)] it is held that “a judicial decision made within jurisdiction is binding and conclusive in so far as it cannot be impeached in collateral proceedings. So long as the decision of the civil court subsists, and has not been cancelled or varied, it is not open to the petitioner to contend the same. The adjudication made by a court of general jurisdiction is not open to challenge much less collaterally. The petitioner cannot be allowed to pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same matter at the same time”. 38. In Eklash and another v. Rashid Ali and others (2017 KHC 2302), it is held that “the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the possession is hostile under a colour of title, actual, open, uninterrupted, notorious, exclusive and continuous. The adverse possession is made out by the coexistence of two distinguished ingredients; first, such a title as will afford colour, and second, such possession under it as will be adverse to the right of the true owner and title by adverse possession becomes complete only when the possession of the trespasser continues uninterruptedly for a full statutory period. In that case, there was no pleadings or evidence to prove adverse possession and the plaintiffs in their pleadings simply stated that for more than 30 years, they are in possession of the suit land. It is further held that while there is nothing in pleadings or evidence as to from which date and time the plaintiffs or their predecessor entered into possession denying title of rightful owner, the rejection of claim is proper”. 39. The claim of adverse possession and limitation advanced by appellants, having been rejected, has become conclusive and final as per Ext.P3 judgment passed by the Additional Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara, wherein it has also found that the appellant/plaintiff's predecessor, Varkki Varkki has failed to establish that he has acquired title by adverse possession and limitation upon the property. 39. The claim of adverse possession and limitation advanced by appellants, having been rejected, has become conclusive and final as per Ext.P3 judgment passed by the Additional Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara, wherein it has also found that the appellant/plaintiff's predecessor, Varkki Varkki has failed to establish that he has acquired title by adverse possession and limitation upon the property. Moreover, the said Varkki Varkki had only a permissive possession over the property and the same is evident from the issuance of provisional patta in his favour. Subsequently the Government has cancelled the provisional patta which was issued in favour of Varkki Varkki. Therefore, it shows that the appellant's father had not acquired title by adverse possession and limitation upon the suit property and he was only in permissive possession of the suit property. It is evident that after the cancellation of the patta only, Varkki Varkki has transferred the property by way of two gift deeds in the name of the appellants. So that transfer itself is void ab initio. 40. Hence the finding entered by the learned single Judge that the appellants had failed to establish that there were genuine grounds for interfering with the impugned order i.e. the order of Land Revenue Commissioner is correct. The learned counsel for the appellants was not able to establish any grounds for interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Therefore we are of the opinion that this writ appeal is to be dismissed. Hence the writ appeal is dismissed.