JUDGMENT : A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. These cases are posted before us as we are dealing with public interest litigation in regard to removal of encroachment and issuance of illegal patta in Munnar. These matters are placed before us as per the order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice. We shall advert to the individual facts of the cases. 2. W.P.(C).Nos.22215/2020 and 35218/2022: The petitioner, approached this Court alleging that her property was illegally resumed by respondents, and further that the Additional Tahsildar, Udumbanchola, cancelled thandaper (mutation) stating that the title of the patta claimed by her is a bogus one. These writ petitions were filed by Beena Josey. Beena Josey claims that she along with her two children are owners and in possession of 1 acre and 61 cents of land comprised in Survey No.34/1 in Chinnakanal Village. According to her, the revenue authority as per TP No.2742 mutated land in their favour. She claims that her late husband Josey Thomas purchased the property from Mariyamma Erulappan, Shanmugha Vilasam, Suryanelli. It is claimed that the above said Mariyamma Erulappan obtained patta as per the proceedings in LA.No.59/1972 dated 26/10/1976. Mariyamma Erulappan executed a registered deed in favour of Josey Thomas through the power of attorney holder. Beena Josey approached this Court to restore her land. She complains that she has been dispossessed from the property treating this land in possession of Jimmy Zacharia. 3. The revenue officials have filed detailed counter affidavits in these cases. According to the officials the real person behind this litigation is Jimmy Zacharia. It is contended that the patta-LA.No.59/1972 was fraudulently created by Josey Thomas and Jimmy Zacharia, with support of certain officials in the revenue department. It is the case of the revenue officials that the aforesaid persons manipulated revenue records and created bogus documents in favour of Mariyamma Erulappan. It is pointed out that the address of the petitioner and the address of Jimmy Zacharia in the sale deed claimed by him are one and the same. It is pertinently pointed out in an application submitted by Jimmy Zacharia before the Panchayat/local authority for licence, referred to as a building for the purpose of running a homestay. Therefore, it is contended that the land in question was in occupation of Jimmy Zacharia and after initiating proceedings against Jimmy Zacharia, land was restored to the State. 4. It is pertinently pointed out in an application submitted by Jimmy Zacharia before the Panchayat/local authority for licence, referred to as a building for the purpose of running a homestay. Therefore, it is contended that the land in question was in occupation of Jimmy Zacharia and after initiating proceedings against Jimmy Zacharia, land was restored to the State. 4. W.P.(C).Nos.24155/2020 and 10028/2021: The petitioner, approached this Court alleging that her property was illegally resumed by respondents, and further that the Additional Tahsildar, Udumbanchola, cancelled thandaper (mutation) stating that the title of the patta claimed by her is a bogus one. These writ petitions were filed by Tessy Jimmy, wife of Jimmy Zacharia. Tessy Jimmy claims that she is the owner of 20 cents of land comprised in survey No.34/1. This has been mutated in her favour as per mutation TP.No.2021. She also claims possession of the land having an extent of 8.09 Ares under the same thandaper number. She claims to have purchased these properties from Josey Thomas in the year 2003. She claims her title to the patta issued by the Tahsildar Udumbanchola in LA No.59/72 dated 26/10/1976 issued in the name of Mariyamma Erulappan, Shanmugha Vilasam, Suryanelli. She claims that Mariyamma Erulappan through her power of attorney transferred the land to Tessy Jimmy’s predecessor-in-interest. It is submitted by her that though there was a small building in the land, it was not reflected in the sale deed. She claims that she had renovated the building after obtaining bank loan. The petitioner’s husband was the power of attorney holder. 5. The Tahsildar, Udumbanchola, filed a counter in this matter. It is contented that the petitioner’s husband Jimmy Zacharia and Josey Thomas with the support of certain officials in the revenue department, manipulated revenue records and created bogus documents in favour of Mariyamma Erulappan. This being a common issue, we are not narrating further on this matter, as a common contention will have to be adverted by us based on the facts revealed in these matters. THE BACKGROUND OF THESE CASES: 6. The Government received a large number of complaints in regard to encroachment of Government land and also regarding creation of bogus patta. A public interest litigation was instituted before this Court in the year 2007 in W.P.(C).No.34095/2007. The Government constituted a team of Senior officials to unearth bogus patta in Kannan Devan Hills Village. They submitted their reports. The Government received a large number of complaints in regard to encroachment of Government land and also regarding creation of bogus patta. A public interest litigation was instituted before this Court in the year 2007 in W.P.(C).No.34095/2007. The Government constituted a team of Senior officials to unearth bogus patta in Kannan Devan Hills Village. They submitted their reports. Dr.Nivedita P.Haran, Principal Secretary Revenue has conducted an enquiry into the encroachments and illegal constructions of Munnar, Chinnakanal, Pallivasal and other areas of Idukki District and a report was filed on the basis of this enquiry in the year 2007. The above report pointed out large scale creation of bogus patta with connivance of revenue officials. It is appropriate to refer the relevant paragraph of the report : “Important Findings in Dr.Nivedita P.Haran’s Report Land is a precious commodity in Munnar. The growth of tourism lead to a massive demand for land. There are numerous encroachments in government land at Munnar. There are lot of constructions violating buildings laws in Munnar. In the late ninetees, Munnar become saturated, then unrestricted constructions moved to Chinnakanal to Pallivasal and to Vagamon. The following were main modus operandi of land mafia. (i) Land from numerous small holders were purchased and grouped together by land mafia and resort groups. (ii) Bogus pattayams were created (iii) In the absence of up to date re-survey, the revenue records pertains to 1908. As there are single survey number to vast areas, in many cases pattayams were genuine but land in possession is different. Use of poor landless migrants for agitation for land in puramboke and later on purchase of this land from poor.” 7. It is pertinent to note that the Government, in its order G.O.(Rt).No.2388/13/Home, dated 30/8/2013, specifically ordered enquiry in regard to the land in occupation of Jimmy Zacharia and family. JUDICIAL REVIEW: 8. In these matters, the action of the revenue authority is called in question. They cancelled thandaper (mutation) and restored the land to the Government. In that process, they treated that patta in LA No.59/1972, alleged to have been issued to Mariyamma Erulappan is bogus one. Though proceedings against restoration were issued only against Jimmy Zacharia, the petitioners state that it is their land that was taken over in the guise of proceedings against Jimmy Zacharia. In that process, they treated that patta in LA No.59/1972, alleged to have been issued to Mariyamma Erulappan is bogus one. Though proceedings against restoration were issued only against Jimmy Zacharia, the petitioners state that it is their land that was taken over in the guise of proceedings against Jimmy Zacharia. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners were given opportunity to be heard in respect of the proceedings for cancellation of thandaper. It is in this background that we will have to decide the question relating to exercise of power of judicial review. 9. The questions involved in these matters are intrinsically linked to the interest and title claimed by the parties over the land. Therefore, how far this Court would be justified in dealing with the power of judicial review in such matters is also a point to be considered. The judicial review as against administrative action in a matter like this will have to be tested on the following parameters: i. This action-initiated amounts to abuse of power ii. This decision is arbitrary iii. This decision is motivated with mala fides or up on irrelevant consideration iv. The decision rendered was without following due procedure. 10. This Court in these proceedings cannot decide on interest or title and order restoration of land by adjudicating in like manner done in civil court. Once the Court is satisfied that the decision will not fall within the above category, the Court will have to relegate the parties to adjudicate the dispute before a competent civil court. Therefore, we are proposing to examine this case in the light of the law as stated above. ON QUESTION RELATING TO IDENTITY: 11. Tessy Jimmy and Beena Josey has a case that the land belonged to them have been taken over without following due procedure under law. 12. The writ petitions are filed by Beena Josey and Tessy Jimmy against illegal takeover of the properties and against cancellation of thandaper. 13. In the land claimed by Tessy Jimmy a resort was constructed called Calypso Adventure Resorts. Tessy Jimmy’s husband-Jimmy Zacharia was found to be managing the resort. The building stands assessed in the name of Jimmy Zacharia. Proceedings were initiated against Jimmy Zacharia. Jimmy Zacharia claimed that this was situated in the land belonged to him covered by LA.No.85/71. The Survey Department found that this is situated in Survey No.34/1. Tessy Jimmy’s husband-Jimmy Zacharia was found to be managing the resort. The building stands assessed in the name of Jimmy Zacharia. Proceedings were initiated against Jimmy Zacharia. Jimmy Zacharia claimed that this was situated in the land belonged to him covered by LA.No.85/71. The Survey Department found that this is situated in Survey No.34/1. It is after giving notice to Jimmy Zacharia, the land was taken over from him. 14. In the proceedings against Jimmy Zacharia, Jimmy Zacharia appeared before all the statutory authorities. He claimed that the resorts were constructed in his property covered by patta-LA No.85/71. The patta obtained by him was found not genuine. The Survey Authorities on determination of the land, found that the land is situated in Re-survey No.34/1. Jimmy Zacharia is the husband of Tessy Jimmy and also a close relative of Beena Josey. Therefore, the petitioners herein cannot pretend ignorance. This aspect is crucial while deciding the issue in this matter in as much as that prima facie it cannot be said that the land taken over from Jimmy Zacharia is the land that belonged to the petitioners, especially when the petitioners had no case that they had established resorts in their land. 15. In respect of the property claimed by Beena Josey it is contended by the revenue authorities that Jimmy Zacharia was running a resort by name Anayirankal Camp. The petitioner has no case that such a resort was established by her. 16. A commission application vide I.A.No.1/2024 in W.P.(C).No.22215/2020 was filed by Beena Josey to identify the land. It is to be noted that Jimmy Zacharia is not a party to this writ petition. It is stated at the Bar that large extent of property is covered in Re-Survey No.34/1. Prima facie it is seen that the land which was restored to the Government was in possession of Jimmy Zacharia and proceedings have been concluded against him. Nobody had disputed the existence of resort in the above land. We may not be therefore justified in these proceedings to hold that the land in fact belonged to the petitioners as it is not for this Court to determine the identity of the property in these proceedings instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution. 17. In the light the discussion as above, we find that the application for commission is to be dismissed, accordingly dismissed. 17. In the light the discussion as above, we find that the application for commission is to be dismissed, accordingly dismissed. ON QUESTION RELATING TO TITLE & MATERIALS RELIED BY REVENUE TO SUBSTANTIATE FRAUDULENT ACT: 18. In regard to cancellation of thandaper, both Tessy Jimmy and Beena Josey were given notice. Cancellation of thandaper was based on the enquiry relating to genuineness of the patta issued in LA.No.59/1972. If there is evidence on record for the revenue authorities to conclude that patta issued was bogus, they would be justified in cancelling thandaper. The Court, in exercise of judicial review need not endorse the view but shall refrain from dealing with such matters if there are sufficient materials or evidence on record for the revenue to hold that patta was bogus by relegating the petitioners to civil remedy. The petitioners in such matters can very well impeach evidence or materials collected by the revenue, in civil court, to establish title. We are therefore examining the matter in the light of the law as above. We note following aspects in this matter: i. The petitioners in the pleadings claim that Mariyamma Erulappan, Shanmugha Vilasam, Suryanelli obtained patta in LA.No.59/1972. It is further stated that her power of attorney holder transferred the property to the petitioners without mentioning the name of the power of attorney holder. It is to be noted that the power of attorney holder is Jimmy Zacharaia. The petitioners conveniently omitted his name in the pleadings. Jimmy Zacharia is husband of Tessy Jimmy and close relative of Beena Josey. The revenue authorities have a case that Beena Josey’s husband Josey Thomas and Jimmy Zacharia created bogus documents to grab the Government land. ii. The original applicant in patta in LA.No.59/72 was one Mariyamma Bial Rao, Chinnakkanal, a woman belonged to Scheduled Caste Community. She did not collect patta from the authority. The application submitted by the aforesaid Mariyamma was produced before this Court. According to revenue, since original Mariyamma failed to come forward, Jimmy Zacharia and Josey Thomas set up Mariyamma Erulappan of similar name to claim over the property belonged to Mariyamma Bial Rao of Scheduled Caste. Mariyamma Erulappan belonged to Thevar Community and therefore, she is not entitled for assignment free of cost. Whereas, a Scheduled Caste member is entitled for assignment free of cost. Mariyamma Erulappan belonged to Thevar Community and therefore, she is not entitled for assignment free of cost. Whereas, a Scheduled Caste member is entitled for assignment free of cost. It is the case of revenue that by setting up Mariyamma Erulappan, the records belonging to Mariyamma Bial Rao, a Scheduled Caste member, was manipulated with the connivance of revenue officials. 19. The following are relied as materials to substantiate fraudulent act: i. The revenue officials recorded Mariyamma Erulappan remitted an amount of Rs.52/- on 20/10/1995. This is a Sunday. ii. The assignment of Registry in favour of Mariyamma Erulappan was in the year 1976 (26/10/1976). Assignment of Registry is in a printed form. (Ext.P3 produced in W.P.(C).No.22215/2020). The print indicates that it was printed only in the year 1978. iii. The relevant page of ‘B’ register produced indicates that the original applicant for patta was E.Mariyamma Bial Rao in respect of LA.No.59/72 and not Mariyamma Erulappan. iv. As per the proceedings Mariyamm Bial Rao is a Scheduled Caste member and need not pay any costs. The application produced by the petitioners would show that Mariyamma Erulappan is a Thevar community member and she has to remit Rs.190.84. Immediately after issuance of order of assignment to Mariyamma Bial Rao certain amount seen recorded in Thandaper register as payment but are not found in daily cash book or till 20/10/1985. But on 20/10/1985 an amount of Rs.52/- has been seen recorded. v. Mariyamma Erulappan, Shanmugha Vilasam, Suryanelli appears to have submitted an application for patta as per LA No.59/1972. A request was made in her name, affixing a court fee of Rs.5/- for the issuance of Patta in 1975. The stamp of Rs.5/- is a very high amount and it is impossible for the Government to collect court fee of Rs.5/- for an application. It was pointed out that the Government servant's increment during the above period was only Rs.5/-. This would show that this document was created after the long lapse of time. vi. A notice was sent to Mariyamma Erulappan in the address shown in the application. That was returned unserved as the addressee was not found out. The existence of such a person itself is under question. vii. Payment of basic tax was only from 1995 onwards after 23 years of alleged creation of Patta. vi. A notice was sent to Mariyamma Erulappan in the address shown in the application. That was returned unserved as the addressee was not found out. The existence of such a person itself is under question. vii. Payment of basic tax was only from 1995 onwards after 23 years of alleged creation of Patta. According to the revenue, this would show that the entire records were created in 1995 with the connivance of the revenue officials. 20. There are many other materials relied on by revenue to justify the case. We need not adjudicate on these matters based on such materials relied on by the revenue authorities. We are clear on this matter. The action initiated is not bereft of any materials or evidence. Prima facie, there is strong evidence to hold that patta claimed by the petitioners is bogus. The remedy of the petitioners in such circumstances is to approach the civil court to impeach such evidence. We will not be justified in this matter to hold that the action is arbitrary, unreasonable and mala fide. In the light of the background of the case, we are of the view that the Revenue authority is justified by their action. The petitioners are at liberty to approach the civil court to establish their title in accordance with law. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed.