Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2222 (KER)

A. M. Abdul Razack v. State of Kerala

2025-08-19

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.

body2025
JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna, J. 1. The petitioner in these writ petitions and Crl. M.C. is one and the same person. The issues to be decided in all three matters are interconnected. Hence, we heard all these matters together and are being disposed of by this common judgment/order. W.P.(C)No.22222 of 2020 2. W.P.(C)No.22222 of 2020 is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “a) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writs, directions or orders calling for the records leading up to Ext.P16 and quashing Exts P12 and P14 to P16; b) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs directions or orders restraining the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the property covered by Exts.P1 and P2 without considering his claim in respect of the disputed property; c) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, direction or orders directing the 5 th respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioner with specific reference to the report of the 4 th respondent dated 21.12.2015; d) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, directions or orders restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of 75 cents of land in Sy.No.182 (Originally in Sy No.441) of the Manjumala Village and also doing cultivation in the said item of land by the petitioner” 3. Going by the averments in W.P.(C)No.22222 of 2020, the petitioner purchased 75 cents of property situated in survey No.144 of Manjumala Village covered in Ext.P1 patta dated 29.01.1979 issued in L.A. No. 363/78, from the Pattadar Sri. Mohammed Puthenpurakkal by virtue of Ext.P2 sale deed No.1220 of 1981 of SRO Peerumade dated 22.10.1981. Alleging that Ext.P1 patta issued in favour of the predecessor of the petitioner and also the pattas issued in favour of some other persons cover excess extent of land than assigned, the pattas were cancelled by the Special Tahsildar, Land Assignment, Peerumade, as per proceedings dated 28.06.2009. Alleging that Ext.P1 patta issued in favour of the predecessor of the petitioner and also the pattas issued in favour of some other persons cover excess extent of land than assigned, the pattas were cancelled by the Special Tahsildar, Land Assignment, Peerumade, as per proceedings dated 28.06.2009. The petitioner states that after several rounds of litigations, the other occupants were successful in obtaining an order from the 2 nd respondent District Collector, Idukki in compliance with the direction of this Court directing the Tahsildar, Peerumade, to restore the cancelled pattas of the land already possessed by the persons like the petitioner, after incorporating exact areas of cancelled pattas in the assignable list and assign thandaper in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. Despite various representations made by the petitioner to the concerned authorities, the same benefits were not granted to the petitioner, though the land of the petitioner lies in the very same survey number and lying contiguous. Therefore, the petitioner along with others, filed W.P.(C)No.3401 of 2017 before this Court, and the same is pending consideration. While the matters stood thus, the 5 th respondent Tahsildar (LA), Peerumade, issued Ext.P12 show cause notice dated 22.09.2020 to the petitioner under Section 12 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957, stating that if the petitioner wishes to show cause against the said notice, he has to appear at 11. 00 a.m. on 30.09.2020 and submit his explanation. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P13 communication dated 30.09.2020 requesting one month’s time, since he has to obtain certain documents relating to the dispute, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and he has to approach this Court relating to the very same property. However, the 5 th respondent adjourned the matter to 05.10.2020 as per Ext.P14 proceedings dated 28.09.2020, directing the petitioner to appear before him at 11.00 a.m. Pending consideration of Ext.P13, the 5 th respondent issued Ext.P15 order dated 08.10.2020 wherein it was specifically stated that the petitioner did not appear in the hearing and failed to submit the necessary documents to prove his case and hence the petitioner was requested to vacate the premises within 48 hours on receipt of ‘C’ Form notice, or else proceedings under Section 7 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act will be initiated against the petitioner. Subsequently, after considering Ext.P13, the 5 th respondent issued Ext.P16 proceedings dated 09.10.2020, wherein it is stated that the documents sought for by the petitioner are not necessary for the hearing conducted by the 5 th respondent and the notice accepted by the petitioner on 28.09.2020 and sufficient time was granted to him and there is no necessity to consider the application dated 30.09.2020 submitted by him. The petitioner then approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.21714 of 2020, challenging Exts.P12 and P14 to P16 orders. On advice, the petitioner withdrew that writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition. Then the 5 th respondent came with Police force and destroyed the entire cardamom cultivation and nutmeg cultivation in the property. Then the petitioner approached this Court with the instant writ petition. 4. The 3rd respondent in W.P.(C)No.22222 of 2020 filed a counter affidavit dated 27.11.2020 opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition and producing therewith Exts.R3(a) and R3(b) documents. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 10 to 13 of that counter affidavit read thus: “3. Recently, petitioner encroached Government land having an extent of 10.11.73 covered in Sy. No. 182 of Manjumala Village, Peerumade Taluk. After taking note of the encroachment of the Government land, the Village Officer, Manjumala submitted a detailed report before the Tahsildar, Peerumade. As per the report of the Village Officer, the petitioner encroached an extent of 10.11.73 hectares of grass land and planted cardamom. Consequently, the Village Officer submitted A Form report, sketch and mahazar of the encroached land. Immediately, the Tahsildar (LR), Peerumade registered LC case against the petitioner and steps are taken for evicting the petitioner. However, the property covered in Survey No. 182 declared by the Government Reserve Forest. On 30.03.2019, the Range Forest Officer issued a letter to the Village Officer, Manjumala, in which it has noted encroachment of the forest land. A true copy of the letter dated 30.03.2019 is produced herewith and may be marked as Exhibit R3(a). 4. Moreover, B Form Notice as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act was served to the petitioner twice. But he did not appear before the Tahsildar for hearing and also did not produce any document to prove the ownership of the property in question. 4. Moreover, B Form Notice as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act was served to the petitioner twice. But he did not appear before the Tahsildar for hearing and also did not produce any document to prove the ownership of the property in question. After providing all the opportunity envisaged in the Land Conservancy Act to substantiate the claim of the petitioner, proceedings were issued against the petitioner to evict him from the encroached Government land within a time frame of 48 hours. The aforesaid Form C Notice is produced by the petitioner as Exhibit P15(a). xxx xxx xxx xxx 10. As a matter of fact, averments are made by the petitioner in the writ petition in such a way to mislead this Hon'ble Court by connecting the disputed land covered in Sy. No.182 with the 75 cents of Patta land involved in LA Case No. 363/78. These two lands are totally different. The properties covered by Exhibit P1 and P2 and the encroached the land are situated two different area and no proximity with the encroached Government land. In order to prevent the authority to evict the petitioner, the petitioner is willfully connected some old cases of patta cancellation of Manjumala Village with the encroached land. The same was done by the petitioner to mislead this Hon'ble Court. The Exhibit P1 Patta is clearly mentioned Survey No. 441 and the same is found place in Exhibit P2 Sale Deed as well. Hence, the attempt of the petitioner to connect the property covered by Exhibit P1 and P2 to the encroached land covered in Sy. No. 182 is illegal. 11. Sri.Mathew Jacob, Alamcheri, the holder of Patta No. LA. 69/84, which was cancelled earlier submitted an application before the District Collector, Idukki to assign Thandaper to him in accordance with Court Order in W.P(C) No. 8452 of 2012. The land involved in the LA Patta No. 69/84 was comprised in Sy. No. 182. But the Tahsildar, Peerumade refused to assign Thandaper to him because he doesn't possess the patta land and the patta file could'nt be found out too. Then he filed W.P(C) No.25219 of 2013 before the Hon'ble High Court and attained a Court Order which was presented as Exhibit P7(2). The Tahsildar was not willing to assign thandaper to him due to lack of possession of Patta land and unavailability of Patta file. Then he filed W.P(C) No.25219 of 2013 before the Hon'ble High Court and attained a Court Order which was presented as Exhibit P7(2). The Tahsildar was not willing to assign thandaper to him due to lack of possession of Patta land and unavailability of Patta file. Then he filed contempt of Court Case No. 365/2014 against the Tahsildar, Peerumade. At last, Tahsildar, Peerumade assigned TP A/c No. 3388 to Sri. Mathew Jacob Alancheri and the Tahsildar specifically noted on the TP Register about the non-possession of the land and prohibition of land transfer. A true copy of the TP Register is produced herewith and may be marked as Exhibit R3(b). 12. But Sri. Mathew Jacob Alancheri transferred this land to petitioner and his family members as per the documents 262/16, 173/16, 174/16,175/16,176/16,177/16 of SRO, Peerumade. On 08.07.2016, the petitioner Sri. A.M. Abdul Razack and other five members of his family submitted an application before the Tahsildar, Peerumade for the Jama transfer of that patta land. On enquiry, it was known that, at that time Sri. Mathew Jacob was a labourer of the petitioner. Hence, it is very clear that Mathew Alancheri was the binami of the petitioner. Now the land is in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. 13. The petitioner encroached a vast area of Government Land in Sy. No. 182 and he tries to make authority over the encroached land by attaining Court Order. Similar in the case of Mathew Jacob Alancheri the petitioner attained a Patta of No. 363/78 from Sri. P.H.Muhammed, Puthanpurackal and filed the W.P(C) No. 3401/2017 to establish authority over the Government land in Sy. No. 182. The Exhibits P8, P9, P10, P11 are the documents related to the matters in Case No. 3401/17 and the case is under consideration of the Hon'ble Court. He linked these documents cunningly to the LC Case No. 4/20 registered by Tahsildar, Peerumade against him for the new encroachment. Hence, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed”. W.P.(C)No.1998 of 2021 5. W.P.(C) No.1998 of 2021 is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “a) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writs, directions or orders calling for the records leading upto Exhibit P4 and quash the same. W.P.(C)No.1998 of 2021 5. W.P.(C) No.1998 of 2021 is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “a) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writs, directions or orders calling for the records leading upto Exhibit P4 and quash the same. b) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, directions or orders directing the 2 nd respondent to consider Exhibit P 5 objections to Exhibit P 4 and take a decision within a specified time by this Hon'ble Court and until such time restrain the 2 nd respondent from disconnecting the electricity connection to the building bearing No.VP XII/611 of the Vandiperiyar Grama Panchayat of the petitioner. c) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ directions or order to declare that the respondents 1 and 2 are not bound to comply with the request of the 3 rd respondent in disconnecting the electricity connection to the building bearing No.VP XII/611 of the petitioner situated in Sy.No.182 of the Manjumala Village” 6. Going by the averments in W.P.(C)No. 1998 of 2021 the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the land tax in respect of the property covered in Ext.P2 sale deed produced in W.P.(C)No.22222 of 2020 was refused to be accepted on the ground that the same lies in survey No.182 of Manjumala village and whereas the property covered in Ext. P1 and P2 documents is in survey No.441 of Peerumade village. According to the petitioner, the 2 nd respondent in W.P.(C)No.1998 of 2021 namely, the Assistant Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd., Vandiperiyar issued Ext.P4 show cause notice dated 22.10.2020 produced in this writ petition, on the instructions of the 3 rd respondent Tahsildar, directing the petitioner to show cause for not disconnecting the electricity connection granted to the shed constructed by him in the Government land in survey No.182. To Ext.P4 show cause notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 explanation dated 26.10.2020. Thereafter the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.1998 of 2021. 7. The 3 rd respondent Tahsildar, Vandiperiyar, filed statements dated 17.02.2021 and 13.04.2021 opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 30.06.2021 to the statements filed by the 3 rd respondent. Crl.M.C.No.4426 of 2021 8. Thereafter the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.1998 of 2021. 7. The 3 rd respondent Tahsildar, Vandiperiyar, filed statements dated 17.02.2021 and 13.04.2021 opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 30.06.2021 to the statements filed by the 3 rd respondent. Crl.M.C.No.4426 of 2021 8. The Crl.M.C is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘Cr.P.C’, for short) read with Rule 45-A of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971, to quash Annexure A1 final report dated 31.12.2020 in Crime No. 892 of 2020 of Vandiperiyar Police Station and Annexure A3 complaint dated 23.10.2020 filed by the Tahsildar (LR), Peerumade. In the Crl.M.C. the petitioner pleaded that the crime is registered on the basis of Annexure A3 complaint filed by the Tahsildar Peerumade, when W.P.(C) No.22222 of 2020 is pending before this Court, challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar. As far as ownership of the property is concerned, the petitioner raised the very same pleadings as those made in W.P.(C)No.22222 of 2020. Contending that the petitioner did not encroach any Government land and the prosecution initiated against him will not stand in view of the fact that the entire proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and Rules made thereunder are under challenge in W.P.(C)No.22222 of 2020 pending consideration of this Court, the petitioner sought relief under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. For convenience of reference, the parties to these writ petitions are hereafter referred to in this judgment as they are arrayed in W.P.(C)No.22222 of 2020, unless otherwise stated. 9. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader. For convenience, we refer the parties and documents as they are referred to in W.P.(C)No.22222 of 2020, unless otherwise stated. 10. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice pertaining to the hearing proposed to be conducted on 30.09.2020 was issued to the petitioner by the 5 th respondent, Tahsildar, Peerumade, on 22.09.2020. The hearing was subsequently adjourned to 05.10.2020, and that notice was issued on 28.09.2020 as evident from Ext.P14. The petitioner then submitted Ext.P13 request dated 30.09.2020 seeking an adjournment for one month, since he had to collect some documents under the Right to Information Act. However, the 5 th respondent issued Ext.P15 order dated 08.10.2020 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises within 48 hours. The petitioner then submitted Ext.P13 request dated 30.09.2020 seeking an adjournment for one month, since he had to collect some documents under the Right to Information Act. However, the 5 th respondent issued Ext.P15 order dated 08.10.2020 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises within 48 hours. He subsequently passed Ext.P16 order dated 09.10.2020 rejecting Ext.P13 request for adjournment made by the petitioner.Therefore, natural justice is denied to the petitioner. 11. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the claim of the petitioner by virtue of Exts.P1 and P2 documents is in respect of the property situated in survey No.441 of Peerumade Village. But the proceedings initiated and orders passed by the 5 th respondent are in respect of survey No.182 of Manjumala Village. Hence the petitioner has not made out sufficient ground to interfere with Ext.P15 order passed by the 5 th respondent in W.P.(C) No.22222 of 2020 or Ext.P4 notice issued by the 2 nd respondent in W.P.(C)No.1998 of 2021. Similarly, there is no sufficient ground to interfere with the criminal case registered by the Police on the complaint of the 5 th respondent regarding encroachment on the Government land. 12. In the 1 st paragraph of statement of facts in W.P.(C)No.22222 of 2020, the petitioner pleaded that his property is situated in survey No.144 of Manjumala village. In the synopsis of that writ petition, the petitioner pleaded it as in survey No.182 of Manjumala village. In some other parts of the pleadings, as well as in the relief portion, the petitioner states that the property is in survey No.182, which was originally in Survey No.441. However, Exts.P1 and P2 documents would show that the 75 cents of property claimed by the petitioner is situated in survey No.441 of Peerumade village. From the counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent, we notice that the proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act against the petitioner for eviction from survey No.182 of Manjumala village which according to the respondent, is Government land. It is in furtherance of the eviction proceedings initiated, Ext.P4 notice produced in W.P.(C)No.1998 of 2021 was issued by the 2 nd respondent, on the request of the 3 rd respondent therein directing the petitioner to show cause against disconnection of the electricity connection to the shed constructed in the Government land situated in survey No.182. It is in furtherance of the eviction proceedings initiated, Ext.P4 notice produced in W.P.(C)No.1998 of 2021 was issued by the 2 nd respondent, on the request of the 3 rd respondent therein directing the petitioner to show cause against disconnection of the electricity connection to the shed constructed in the Government land situated in survey No.182. The prosecution under challenge in Crl.M.C.No.4426 of 2021 is also taken in furtherance of the land conservancy proceedings initiated by the 5 th respondent, Tahsildar. It is after conducting an enquiry in pursuance of Ext.P12 notice, Ext.P15 order was passed by the Tahsildar. Though the petitioner had submitted Ext.P13 request to adjourn the proceedings, he cannot take it as granted and keep himself away from the proceedings. In such circumstances, Ext.P15 order cannot be said as passed in violation of natural justice. 13. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to interfere with any of the legal proceedings initiated by the authorities concerned, to evict the petitioner from the encroached land and the consequential steps taken in accordance with law. Therefore, the writ petitions and the Crl.M.C are liable to be dismissed. In the result, W.P.(C)No.22222 of 2020 and W.P.(C)No.1998 of 2021 and Crl.M.C. No.4426 of 2021 are dismissed.