JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts.P14 and P15 communications issued by the Pallivasal Grama Panchayat and the District Collector, Idukki dated 04.07.2018 and 29.06.2018, whereby the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat has directed the petitioner to show cause why the building permit as well as the D&O licence issued to the petitioner shall not be cancelled, and the direction of the District Collector to take action against the petitioner by cancelling the clearances given from the Grama Panchayat, respectively. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. The subject property admeasuring 50 cents comprised in Block No.12, Re-survey No.137/8 of Anaviratti Village (old Survey No.19/1 of Pallivasal Village) forms part of the larger extent viz., 14.05.05 hectares + 8.3058 hectares of land owned by the petitioner. The said larger property of the petitioner formed part of 10,000 Acres of land comprised in Survey No.19/1 of Anaviratti Village, Devikulam Taluk, assigned by the State Government, in favour of one Padannamackal Chacko in the year 1935. The said larger property of Padannamackal Chacko changed hands under different documents to third parties. While so, petitioner purchased an extent of 14.85.88 hectares and adjacent extent of 8.3058 hectares of land and this land later became comprised in the Re-survey and the Block number specified above of Anaviratti Village, and petitioner has been paying land tax in his name after getting it mutated in his name. 3. So also, 50 cents of property formed part of an extent of 6.72 acres covered under sale deed No.1224/1997 dated 08.05.1997 of Devikulam Sub Registry Office. Petitioner thereafter secured necessary no objection/approvals from the revenue authorities, and on the basis of which, secured building permit from the th respondent, i.e., the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, in the year 2011. The construction of the building complex was completed perfectly in accordance with the building permit and obtained occupancy certificate/ownership certificate from the Panchayat and the resort has been functioning since the last two years. 4. Since the 2nd respondent suggested that the NOC issued by the District Collector, i.e., Ext.P6(a), to facilitate construction of the resort was without authority, sought clarification of the 1st respondent by a proceeding dated 16.06.2018. The 2nd respondent in that connection, after making a hearing on 20.06.2018, served a copy of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 16.06.2018. 4. Since the 2nd respondent suggested that the NOC issued by the District Collector, i.e., Ext.P6(a), to facilitate construction of the resort was without authority, sought clarification of the 1st respondent by a proceeding dated 16.06.2018. The 2nd respondent in that connection, after making a hearing on 20.06.2018, served a copy of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 16.06.2018. In the said proceedings, it is stated that the 2nd respondent had referred the matter to the 1st respondent for clarification and for further instructions/guidance in the matter. However, instead of waiting for a decision/clarification from the 1st respondent, 2nd respondent issued Ext.P15 proceedings dated 29.06.2018, requiring the 4th respondent, i.e., the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to initiate proceedings to revoke the building permit given by the Panchayat to the petitioner. It was thereupon that, Ext.P14 is served by the 4th respondent. However, the case of the petitioner is that, since the construction of building has already been completed and the same is an operational one, it is inequitable, unjust and arbitrary on the part of the 4th respondent to propose cancellation of the building permit as well as D&O licence given to the petitioner. So also, in the absence of any statutory provision enabling the 2nd respondent to exercise any action either under the repealed Cardamom Rules, 1935, or under the Land Conservancy Act, there is no justification to precipitate the is sues to incorrect dimensions, as discernible from Exts.P13 and P14. Therefore, petitioner apprehends adverse proceedings from the side of the respondents. 5. A detailed counter affidavit is filed for and on behalf of the 5th respondent, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions, it is stated that, Ext.P1 is only a letter issued by the then Chief Secretary to the Land Revenue and Income Tax Commissioner, which only indicates the intention to assign the land and so also, Ext.P1(a) notification only reveals the intention to assign the land in Survey No.19 of Pallivasal Pakuthy. Therefore, Ext.P1 letter or Ext.P1(a) notification cannot be treated as an order of assignment to assign 10,000 acres. Hence the contention of the petitioner that the Government assigned 10,000 Acres outside the Cardamom Hill Reserve is incorrect and contrary to facts. Therefore, Ext.P1 letter or Ext.P1(a) notification cannot be treated as an order of assignment to assign 10,000 acres. Hence the contention of the petitioner that the Government assigned 10,000 Acres outside the Cardamom Hill Reserve is incorrect and contrary to facts. It is also pointed out that, under Rule 9 of the Cardamom Rules, specific procedure is prescribed for assignment of land i.e., by public auction or by Cardamom Rules. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention put forth by the 5th respondent is that, petitioner could not establish any of such procedures followed by the State Government in the matter of assignment of 10,000 Acres of land to Padannamackal Chacko. Therefore, there is no basis for advancing the contention that petitioner is a subsequent purchaser from the assignees of Padannamackal Chacko. 6. That apart, it is pointed out that, the cardamom lands are reserved forest lands, as can be seen from the Cardamom Rules itself. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the apex court in 'T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India' [ (1997) 2 SCC 267 ], it is a forest land and covered by Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Hence, no construction, which is a non-forest activity, can be permitted. That apart, it is submitted that, petitioner has no title to the property comprised in Survey Nos.137 and 137/8 of Anaviratti Village of Devikulam Taluk. No valid title is transferred to the petitioner by Ext.P3 sale deed. The property comprised in Survey No.137/Pt (old Survey No.373/2) is the absolute property of the Government. No Patta or Assignment Order has been issued by the Government or the District Collector, Idukki to the petitioner or his predecessor, assigning the above properties. The payment of land tax by Ext.P2 or Ext.P2(a) will not confer any title. 7. It is also submitted that, petitioner and his predecessor illegally created documents to grab the Government property comprised in the aforesaid Survey numbers. The District Collector, Idukki verified the back files leading to Ext.P7(a) NOC issued by the then District Collector, Idukki dated 18.04.2007, and found that the file number leading to Ext.P1 is not available in the office of the District Collector. Therefore, the authenticity and genuineness of the said letter could not be verified. In addition to that, the District Collector cannot permit by Ext.P7(a) to make constructions in the Government property given for cardamom cultivation. Therefore, the authenticity and genuineness of the said letter could not be verified. In addition to that, the District Collector cannot permit by Ext.P7(a) to make constructions in the Government property given for cardamom cultivation. Further, there is no authority for the District Collector to issue such a certificate under any of the Rules. Hence the said NOC is null and void. Again, it appears from Ext.P7(b) that the Tahsildar, Devikulam has issued a letter to the petitioner stating that the aforesaid property is not a 'sarkar puramboke', and it is not included in the vested forest or excess land. It appears from the said letter that it was issued for producing the same before the Kerala Financial Corporation. The Tahsildar has no statutory power to issue such a letter to the petitioner, and therefore, the said letter cannot be relied upon to find that petitioner has valid title with respect to the properties in question. 8. So much so, the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau had conducted a detailed enquiry with respect to the documents claimed to have been issued to the petitioner by the revenue officials by way of Ext.P7(a) to Ext.P7(c), and during the course of enquiry, it was revealed that Ext.P7(c) is a fabricated document. It was also revealed that the number shown in Ext.P7(a) i.e., 191/2011 is a number assigned to a Caste certificate issued by the Village Officer, Anaviratti Village. In addition to that, the Village Officer has no authority to issue a certificate like Ext.P7(c) to the petitioner certifying that the land is not used for cardamom cultivation. Petitioner obtained Ext.P8 ownership certificate and building permit from the local Panchayat by producing the fabricated documents before the Panchayat. 9. That apart, it is stated that, the property included in Ext.P2 and Ext.P2(a) are the property of the Government. In addition to that, in Cardamom Hill Reserve, the land given for cardamom cultivation under the lease cannot be transferred without permission of the Government and the documents including the alleged title deeds were created to grab the Government land. The fabrication of Pattas and Land Assignment Orders in the Munnar area were noticed by a Division Bench of this Court. Further, an enquiry was conducted by the higher level officers of the Revenue and Police Department, and it was revealed that there was fabrication of Title Deeds, Land Assignment order, Land Assignment Pattas etc. The fabrication of Pattas and Land Assignment Orders in the Munnar area were noticed by a Division Bench of this Court. Further, an enquiry was conducted by the higher level officers of the Revenue and Police Department, and it was revealed that there was fabrication of Title Deeds, Land Assignment order, Land Assignment Pattas etc. in the Munnar area. It was after referring the above records, this Court passed an interim order, prohibiting construction of buildings in the Munnar area, without securing NOC from the District Collector, in W.P.(C) No.1801 of 2010 dated 21.01.2010. 10. It is further stated that, petitioner has not obtained any such permission from the Revenue officials, as can be seen from Ext.R2(a), Ext.P7(a) and Ext.P7(c). Therefore, the construction made by the petitioner without obtaining NOC from the Revenue Department is violative of the interim order passed by this Court. It is also pointed out that, petitioner has not produced a copy of the alleged Patta or Land Assignment Order before the Government or the District Collector, and petitioner has failed to produce any such documents before this Court also. That apart, petitioner has not also produced the Patta before the District Collector, when the matter was heard by the District Collector. Therefore, it is clear, there is no Patta issued to the petitioner on account of any title held by the petitioner in a legalistic manner. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention advanced by the 5th respondent is that, petitioner did not have any valid documents to establish the title over the property, enabling the petitioner to carry out construction and conduct the business in the buildings in question. 11. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner, refuting the allegations and contentions raised in the counter affidavit and also reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition. It is also pointed out there under that, petitioner had applied to obtain copies of records under the Right to Information Act, to make available the same before this Court, however it did not materialise, which is clear from Ext.P18 information given by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Idukki, stating that such information cannot be divulged. It is also pointed out there under that, petitioner had applied to obtain copies of records under the Right to Information Act, to make available the same before this Court, however it did not materialise, which is clear from Ext.P18 information given by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Idukki, stating that such information cannot be divulged. It is also submitted that, the entire Vigilance enquiry and the statements recorded from the concerned officers may be called for, for verification, in order to assimilate the authenticity and truth of the submission made by the 5th respondent. 12. It is also pointed out that, Ext.P19 certificate is a similar certificate to Ext.P7(a) issued by the District Collector or any of the revenue authorities. That apart, it is pointed out that the attempt of the 5th respondent to challenge the very title of the petitioner to the property, at this distance of time, only shows the arbitrariness and unfairness on the part of the respondents misusing their power and authority. It is further stated that, the contentions advanced on the basis of Exts.P1 and P1(a) are thoroughly incorrect and misleading, and if the 5th respondent is aware of such documents, there was no reason for the 5th respondent to produce the files before this Court. 13. That apart, it is stated that, petitioner, through a friend of him, applied and obtained certain records from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devikulam, viz., Ext.P20, which would certainly throw some light in the subject issue and the contention advanced that no Patta or Assignment Order has been issued by the Government or the District Collector to the predecessor in title of the property of the petitioner. Moreover, no documents or pleadings are put forth by the 5th respondent to defeat the case advanced by the petitioner based on various documents including the contention that the property was mutated in the name of the petitioner and tax is also accepted from the petitioner. Petitioner has also produced additional documents viz., Ext.P21 series issued by the revenue authorities like, possession certificate, location sketch etc. etc. Exts.P22 and P22(a) are request made by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act dated 13.11.2018 and the reply given by the Village Officer, respectively. Petitioner has also obtained the possession certificate from the Village Officer viz., Ext.P23 on 02.12.2006 to produce the same before the State Bank of Travancore, Munnar Branch. etc. Exts.P22 and P22(a) are request made by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act dated 13.11.2018 and the reply given by the Village Officer, respectively. Petitioner has also obtained the possession certificate from the Village Officer viz., Ext.P23 on 02.12.2006 to produce the same before the State Bank of Travancore, Munnar Branch. 14. I have heard Sri. V.V. Asokan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Ranjith Thampan, learned Additional Advocate General and Sri. Premachandra Prabhu, appearing for respondents 3 and 4. Perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 15. Even though various issues are raised by the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent, the subject issue lies in a very narrow compass, as to whether any interference is to be made in Ext.P14 notice issued by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, directing the petitioner to produce D&O licence and building permit, since it is found that the building permit as well as the D&O licence are to be cancelled. Apparently, Ext.P14 is issued by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat based on Ext.P15 letter dated 29.06.2018 issued by the District Collector. It is very clear from Ext.P14 that the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat has not verified the subject issue and Ext.P14 is issued solely on the basis of the directives issued by the District Collector. In Ext.P15, it is stated by the District Collector that the buildings are constructed in a property given for cardamom cultivation, and therefore, the permit and other clearances issued by the Grama Panchayat cannot be sustained, and it shall be cancelled immediately. 16. Therefore, it is quite clear and evident from Ext.P15 that the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat has no option than to cancel the building permit and D&O licence etc. given to the petitioner, since a higher officer in hierarchy has directed to do so. Therefore, on an immediate appreciation of Ext.P14, it is clear that the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, who was vested with ample powers under law to call for the records, did not apply his mind to the subject issue in question. A building permit is issued by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat by exercising the statutory powers conferred under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011. A building permit is issued by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat by exercising the statutory powers conferred under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011. Even though contentions are advanced by learned Additional Advocate General that there is no patta issued to the petitioner or the predecessor in interest of the property of the petitioner and the documents are fabricated, no documents are produced before this Court to establish the same. It may, probably for the reason that a Vigilance enquiry was going on, and I am informed by the learned Additional Advocate General that a final report is filed before the court concerned against various persons including the District Collector, who has issued Ext.P7(a), petitioner herein and other persons. 17. Ext.P18 document produced by the petitioner, received under the Right to Information Act, also shows that petitioner has applied for furnishing details with respect to the properties in question, however, it is replied by the said statutory authority that, it is a subject matter of criminal investigation, and therefore, the copies cannot be furnished. It may not also proper on the part of this court to call for the records and rely upon the said documents, since the criminal proceedings are yet to be finalized by a competent court of law. 18. It is an admitted fact that, petitioner has secured Ext.P3 document from the predecessor in title for valid consideration. On a perusal of Ext.P20, it is evident that, at least an extent of 120 Acres of property were assigned in favour of Padannamackal Chacko. According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, petitioner has purchased the property from the title holder who have secured title from Padannamackal Chacko, and therefore, there is no manner of illegality in the property held by the petitioner as per Ext.P3 title document. It is also stated in the writ petition that, the property was mutated in favour of the petitioner and revenue tax is also being paid, which is not under much dispute in the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent. 19. Moreover, various documents are produced by the petitioner to show that the petitioner is in possession of the property. It is also stated in the writ petition that, the property was mutated in favour of the petitioner and revenue tax is also being paid, which is not under much dispute in the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent. 19. Moreover, various documents are produced by the petitioner to show that the petitioner is in possession of the property. There is no dispute for the 5th respondent that the building permit was secured by the petitioner from the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat and the constructions are carried out in accordance with the approved plan and permit as well as in accordance with the Rules, 2011. So also, as per Ext.P13 order passed by the District Collector, dated 16.06.2018, it is directed that further construction shall not be made by the petitioner till such time the issue is clarified by the State Government. However, within 13 days thereafter, Ext.P15 is issued by the District Collector to the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, to cancel the building permit issued to the petitioner. In Ext.P15 nothing is spelt out with respect to the clarification issued by the State Government, as is stated in Ext.P13. 20. Petitioner has also a case that the Cardamom Rules is no more in force consequent to the judgment of this Court in 'Vincy Cherian v. State of Kerala' [ 2014 (1) KLT 372 ], whereby it is held that, by virtue of Section 9(3) of the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960, the provisions of Cardamom Rules have become redundant. What I could gather from Ext.P15 communication of the District Collector is that, construction was carried out by the petitioner in violation of the Cardamom Rules, which persuaded the District Collector to direct the Secretary to cancel the permit and licence. If the Cardamom Rules, 1935 are repealed consequent to the introduction of the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960, then there could be no force in the findings rendered by the District Collector in Ext.P15. Anyhow, these are all subject matter of prosecution by the State Vigilance, in which the petitioner is also an accused. 21. If the Cardamom Rules, 1935 are repealed consequent to the introduction of the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960, then there could be no force in the findings rendered by the District Collector in Ext.P15. Anyhow, these are all subject matter of prosecution by the State Vigilance, in which the petitioner is also an accused. 21. Even though learned Additional Advocate General has advanced arguments in accordance with the counter affidavit placed by the 5th respondent and relied upon various judgments of this Court and the apex court, I am of the considered opinion that, such aspects may not be so vital and prominent at this point of time to consider the issues raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. It is an admitted fact, petitioner is conducting the resort after constructing the building as per the building permit, D&O licence and other clearances from the Grama Panchayat and other statutory authorities. It is also evident, as I have pointed out earlier, the District Collector did not have the advantage of securing any clarification from the State Government, as is put forth in Ext.P13 communication. 22. Evaluating all these aspects, I am of the view, there was no enabling circumstances for the District Collector to direct the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to cancel the D&O licence as well as the building permit issued to the petitioner. Even though Ext.P14 is a notice directing the petitioner to show cause within 7 days, since the District Collector has issued the imperative direction in Ext.P15, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat has no other option than to cancel the building permit as well as the D&O licence. The said direction issued by the District Collector can only be viewed illegal and arbitrary, since the power for revocation of permit is only vested with the Secretary under Rule 18 of the Rules, 2011. But, I do not think the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat has adopted such a course of action, to get himself satisfied that there are reasons for taking action against the petitioner, as is contemplated under Rule 18 of the Rules, 2011, which read thus: “18. But, I do not think the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat has adopted such a course of action, to get himself satisfied that there are reasons for taking action against the petitioner, as is contemplated under Rule 18 of the Rules, 2011, which read thus: “18. Suspension and Revocation of permit.-- The Secretary shall stay, suspend or revoke any permit issued under these rules if it is satisfied that the applicant has violated any conditions prescribed in the permit or that the construction is carried out in deviation of the approved plans or that there is violation of any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made there under or that the permit was happened to be issued on misrepresentation of fact or law or that the construction if carried on will be a threat to life or property: Provided that before revoking permit, the owner of the permit shall be given 7 days notice, and an opportunity of being heard to explain and the explanation shall be duly considered by the Secretary.” However, nothing is spelt out in Ext.P14 to identify any such situation, other than stating that the District Collector has directed to cancel the building permit and D&O licence. So much so, the Secretary is a statutory functionary under law, and no authority is expected to diktat terms on him, so as to interfere with the power conferred on him by the statute. Therefore, I have no doubt, Ext.P14 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and illegality, susceptible to be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is also the proposition of law laid down by a learned Single Judge of this Court in 'Mukundan Menon v. State of Kerala' [ 2012 (4) KLT 640 ]. 23. So much so, Ext.P13 is a significant indicator to arrive at a safe conclusion that the subject matter is under consideration of the State Government, and therefore, without any consequential direction from that superior authority, the District Collector ought not have ventured to precipitate action. Which thus means, Ext.P15 is a premature action, without authority of law and founded on hollow state of affairs, and in the midst of incomplete proceedings, pending adjudication of truth and veracity in respect of the property held by the petitioner. Which thus means, Ext.P15 is a premature action, without authority of law and founded on hollow state of affairs, and in the midst of incomplete proceedings, pending adjudication of truth and veracity in respect of the property held by the petitioner. So also, it can never be said that, petitioner is not having a prima facie case consequent to mutation effected, revenue tax paid, and clearances issued by revenue authorities. Therefore, unless and until the issue of fabrication, non-existence of title, patta etc. etc. are unearthed, it can only be presumed under law that those are documents issued by the statutory authorities, by virtue of any powers conferred upon them under law. 24. Needless to say, if any fraud, illegality or any adverse circumstances are found to be in existence, interfering with the title held by the petitioner, then the cause of action arises, enabling the State and its instrumentalities to exercise the power conferred on them under law and recover the property. To put it otherwise, any functionary under the Government is not expected to exercise any powers to the extreme disadvantage of a citizen, who is prima facie holding the property with records, without adequate enquiry and convincing reasons, failing which, the action will become arbitrary and illegal. This is the state of affairs I could evaluate from Exts.P13 to P15 documents produced by the petitioner. I am also of the view, the authorities shall always be guided by law, reasons and patience, rather than passion, recklessness and abrupt actions, other than the ones warranted to protect the larger interest of the community in any emergent situations. 25. Taking into account the legal and factual circumstances as of now, and since the Vigilance enquiry and other enquiries are pending, petitioner is permitted to carry on with the activities, however, subject to any investigation, enquiry, or orders passed by any competent statutory authority, or court of law. But, I make it clear, if and when any orders are passed or decision taken accordingly, petitioner will be guided by such orders or decision. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent.