Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 612 (KER)

S. RAJENDRAN v. STATE OF KERALA

2025-03-17

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Muralee Krishna, J.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Call for the records leading to Exts.P10, P13, P15 and P17 and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, order or direction quashing Exts P10, P13, P15 and P17. (ia) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction directing the respondents to correct the survey No. in Exts P2 and P3 as ‘912’ instead of ‘843A’.” 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste. The 5 th respondent assigned 8 cents of land in KDH Village in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960. When the petitioner attempted to effect mutation in the revenue records, it was found that the survey number was wrongly shown as 843A instead of the correct survey number of 912. As per judgment dated 20.02.2020 in W.P.(C)No.7296 of 2015, this Court directed the 5 th respondent to consider the request of the petitioner to correct the survey number in the light of circular No.35735/A2/2015/Revenue dated 30.10.2017 issued by the 1 st respondent. But as per Order No. B1-10716/2018 dated 08.01.2021, the 5 th respondent rejected the request of the petitioner to correct the survey number. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal dated 26.02.2021 before the 4 th Respondent which was dismissed. Though the petitioner filed a Revision petition before the 2 nd respondent, the same was also dismissed. In the meanwhile, the 5 th respondent has issued an order of eviction of the petitioner from the property in question under the Land Conservancy Act. Hence the above writ petition. 3. The 2 nd respondent Commissioner of Land Revenue filed a counter affidavit opposing the averments in the writ petition. Paragraphs 3 to 12 of that counter affidavit read thus: “3. It is submitted that the petitioner has encroached about 8 cents of land in survey number 912 of Kannan Devan Hills Village (presently Munnar Village) by constructing a house and letting it out for rent. The petitioner claims that assignment evidenced by Exhibits P2 and P3 has been issued to him in the year 2001 for the said land in his possession. The petitioner claims that assignment evidenced by Exhibits P2 and P3 has been issued to him in the year 2001 for the said land in his possession. The petitioner himself admits that land in his possession is in survey number 912 and the so-called assignment is in survey number 843-A of Munnar village. The petitioner filed Exhibit-P4 application before the 3 rd respondent District Collector for correction of survey number in the documents evidencing assignments. The application was rejected by the 3 rd respondent District collector by way of Exhibit-P6 order. The petitioner thereafter approached the 2nd respondent Commissioner of Land Revenue in an appeal against Exhibit- P6 order, which was also rejected by way of Exhibit-P7 order. Meanwhile the Government issued directions in Exhibit-P8 whereby certain guidelines were issued regarding correction of survey numbers in assignments. Taking advantage of Exhibit-P8 orders. petitioner again approached this Hon'ble court in WP(C)No.7296 of 2015 and this Hon'ble Court had directed 5th respondent Tahsildar to consider the request of the petitioner in the light of Exhibit-P8 guidelines. After considering the request of the petitioner in the light of Exhibit-P8 guidelines, the 5 th respondent Tahsildar rejected the request of the petitioner by way of Exhibit-P10 order. 4. It is submitted that the 5 th respondent Tahsildar, on finding that the possession of land is an illegal one in Government Puramboke land and since request of the petitioner to effect correction of survey number in assignment was rightly rejected, initiated proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 against the petitioner vide Exhibit-P11. The petitioner, in the meanwhile preferred an appeal before the 4 th respondent Sub collector, Devikulam and approached this Hon'ble court in WP(C) No.7424 of 2022. By way of Exhibit-P12 judgment, this Hon,ble court had directed 4 th respondent Sub Collector to consider and dispose appeal filed by the petitioner and ordered status-quo till such disposal. The appeal was dismissed by 4 th respondent sub collector by way of Exhibit- P13 order. Immediately, Exhibit-P15 proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 were initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner, again approached this respondent in Exhibit-P14 revision petition against Exhibit- P13 order and simultaneously approached this Hon'ble court in WP(C) No.37449 of 2022. This Hon'ble court, in Exhibit- P16 judgment, directed this respondent to consider and pass orders in Exhibit-P14 revision petition within a stipulated time. The petitioner, again approached this respondent in Exhibit-P14 revision petition against Exhibit- P13 order and simultaneously approached this Hon'ble court in WP(C) No.37449 of 2022. This Hon'ble court, in Exhibit- P16 judgment, directed this respondent to consider and pass orders in Exhibit-P14 revision petition within a stipulated time. The revision petition was considered and Exhibit-P13 order issued by the 4 th respondent Sub Collector was upheld by Exhibit P17 order. The instant Writ petition is filed against Exhibit-P17 order as well as Exhibit-P15 proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957. 5. It is submitted that Exhibit-P1 Residential/ownership certificate produced by the petitioner itself is for an unauthorized construction and issued under section 235AA and 235W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The said sections of the Act expressly authorise the authorities to demolish the construction if found illegal. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to claim possession of land by the strength of Exhibit-P1. 6. It is submitted that the difference in boundaries of the claimed land from the boundaries recorded in Exhibit-P2 assignment order was duly verified. When the actual western boundary of the land belongs to Kerala State Electricity Board, the boundary recorded in Exhibit-P2 is Government land. An old temple existing in the south east boundary of the claimed land is not mentioned as boundary in Exhibit-P2 assignment order. When the property of Balasingh is recorded as northern boundary in Exhibit-P2, actually northern boundary is Government Land. Again, the southern boundary of the claimed land is the land for Housing project in survey number 912, whereas the southern boundary mentioned in Exhibit-P2 is that of Kerala State Electricity Board. Above all, when the actual assignment is for 8 cents of land, the claimed possession is of 9 cents. 7. It is submitted that the petitioner, taking undue advantage of a series of litigations, is utilising precious Government land for commercial purposes. The land in question is not used for personal residence of the petitioner. Grounds raised in the writ petition, without leaving one, has been considered by the respondents 2 to 5 in various proceedings in original applications, appeal petitions and revision petitions. Moreover every stage of the proceedings has been brought before this Hon'ble court in Writ Petitions WP(C) No.30507 of 2010, 7296 of 2015, 7424 of 2022 and 37449 of 2022. Grounds raised in the writ petition, without leaving one, has been considered by the respondents 2 to 5 in various proceedings in original applications, appeal petitions and revision petitions. Moreover every stage of the proceedings has been brought before this Hon'ble court in Writ Petitions WP(C) No.30507 of 2010, 7296 of 2015, 7424 of 2022 and 37449 of 2022. Every action taken by the respondents are in compliance with orders issued by the Hon'ble Court in the above Writ Petitions from time to time. 8. It is an admitted fact that the land possessed by the petitioner is in survey number 912 of Munnar Village and the so called assignment is for land in survey number 843-A of Munnar village. Exhibit-P8 guidelines is issued for correction in survey number of assignment in case of genuine assignments as established from various official records relating to land assignment. In case of the so-called assignment in favour of the petitioner, there are no records, either as Land Assignment File or No II Register, showing even the application or grant of such an assignment. In the course of enquiry, it was revealed that the boundaries mentioned in the so called order of assignment (Exhibit-P2) and the actual boundaries of the land in possession never tallies. The respondents are never duty bound to effect correction in a dubious assignment as is against the provisions contained in Exhibit-P8 guidelines. 9. The Kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules provide for the procedure to be followed for granting an assignment of land. In the instant case there is no land assignment file in respect of the assignment. Moreover, the Land Assignment No II Register, which shows the details of all assignments made, does not include the so called assignment in favour of the petitioner. As such, the issue or regularisation of the so called assignment could not be established from any of the official records concerned. 10. Reports dated 01.04.2004 and 01.09.2006 are prepared by Sri. Rajan K Madhekar IPS, Additional Director General of Police (lntelligence ) and Sri. P C Sanalkumar IAS, secretary, Kerala State Land Board respectively. These officers were appointed by the Government officially to conduct enquiry regarding bogus assignments and encroachments in Government land in various parts of Idukki District. These officers have submitted reports to Government directly and copy of which is available with the respondents. P C Sanalkumar IAS, secretary, Kerala State Land Board respectively. These officers were appointed by the Government officially to conduct enquiry regarding bogus assignments and encroachments in Government land in various parts of Idukki District. These officers have submitted reports to Government directly and copy of which is available with the respondents. The respondents have treated the said reports as a reference report. However, the action taken against the petitioner are purely in consideration of official records and ground reality. 11. The respondents have duly considered the matter of difference between boundaries as per the so-called assignment and actual boundaries of possession. The boundaries have been verified by qualified surveyor and reports obtained. The details of such report has been included in orders issued by the respondents. The claim that the petitioner resided in the land for some period of time does not absolve the petitioner from proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957. The land in which the petitioner claims right is Government land and under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957, it is not lawful for any person to occupy a land which is a property of the Government, whether a puramboke or not, without permission from the Government. Even in Exhibit-P1 certificate of residence from the Grama Panchayath, the validity of which is not verified by this respondent, the occupation is said to have commenced from 1987-88. Further, Exhibit-P1 Residential/Ownership Certificate produced by the petitioner itself is for an unauthorised construction and issued under section 235AA and 235W of the Kerala panchayath Raj Act, 1994. The said sections of the act expressly authorise the authorities to demolish the construction, if found illegal. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to claim possession of land by the strength of Exhbit-P1. A regular assignment could have granted to the petitioner only on satisfactorily proving occupation of an assignable land prior to 01.08.1971. Thus the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 becomes squarely applicable to the petitioner who is possessing Government land on the strength of a non-existing assignment. 12. The respondents are proceeding against the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 after all the statutory appeal/revisions are exhausted for the petitioner. The official respondents herein are dealing with the issue from the year 2009. 12. The respondents are proceeding against the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 after all the statutory appeal/revisions are exhausted for the petitioner. The official respondents herein are dealing with the issue from the year 2009. At every stage of the proceedings, the petitioner was heard in detail and the petitioner has no contention otherwise. Every claim put forward by the petitioner are considered on merits and orders passed. Due intervention from the Hon'ble court was there at every stage of the proceedings. The respondents are duty bound to protect Government land from encroachment. Undue delay in finalising the proceedings will be detrimental to public interest”. 4. To the counter affidavit, the petitioner filed a reply affidavit, producing Exts.P21 to P26 documents. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the property in question was in the possession of the parents of the petitioner, and he was brought up in a hut put up in that property by his parents. After attaining majority, the petitioner applied for assignment of said land and was issued with Ext.P3 patta dated 05.12.2001 by the 5 th respondent Tahsildar, Devikulam. But in the patta the survey number of the property is wrongly shown as 843A instead of the correct survey No.912. Though the petitioner filed repeated requests to correct the survey number, it was rejected by the authorities without proper application of mind, even though there was direction from this Court in the previous writ petitions filed by the petitioner. One of the reasons for rejection of the Revision filed by the petitioner by Ext.P17 order dated 11.04.2023 by the 2 nd respondent is that the boundaries of the property seen in Ext.P2 order of assignment dated 21.06.2021 are not tallying with the present boundaries. But it is due to change of boundary holders that happened for the last several years after issuing patta such a change was there. It is argued by the learned counsel that the respondents have no case that Ext.P3 patta obtained by the petitioner is a forged document or issued by an incompetent officer. But it is due to change of boundary holders that happened for the last several years after issuing patta such a change was there. It is argued by the learned counsel that the respondents have no case that Ext.P3 patta obtained by the petitioner is a forged document or issued by an incompetent officer. According to the learned counsel, Section 9 of the Kannan Devan Hills Act (‘KDH Act’ in short) is not applicable to the property of the petitioner since it is excluded under Section 3 of the said Act. 7. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader argued that there is no corresponding file in the Taluk Office to the patta produced by the petitioner. Ext.P8 Circular dated 30.10.2017 issued by the Government which directs correction in the patta is applicable only in cases where there is a mistake in the survey number and the boundaries are tallying. However, on an enquiry conducted by the authorities, it is understood that the boundaries of the property claimed by the petitioner is not tallying with Ext.P2 order of assignment and Ext.P3 patta. The petitioner who had somehow managed to obtain patta in respect of another land is now claiming correction of that patta suitably to another land now occupied by him. He rented out a building put up on that property to a third party and she filed a complaint against the petitioner before the 3 rd responder District Collector. It is also argued by the learned Senior Government Pleader that after coming into force of the KDH Act, all properties in the revenue village of Kanan Devan Hills are vested with the Government. The Officer authorised to assign the land under Kannan Devan Hills is the 3 rd respondent District Collector. In the instant case patta was issued by the 5 th respondent Tahsildar and hence no value can be given to Ext.P3 patta. Ext.P2 order of assignment dated 21.06.2001 and Ext.P3 patta dated 05.12.2001 relied by the petitioner would show that those documents were issued in respect of 8 cents of properties situated in survey No.843A of KDH village. 8. The land in question is situated within the area wherein the KDH Act is notified as applicable by the Government. As per Section 1(2) of the Act, it came into force on 21.1.1971. 8. The land in question is situated within the area wherein the KDH Act is notified as applicable by the Government. As per Section 1(2) of the Act, it came into force on 21.1.1971. As per Section 1(3) of the Act, it applies to the land comprising the revenue village of Kannan Devan Hills in the Devikulam Taluk. Section 3 of the Act deals with vesting of possession of all lands situated in Kannan Devan Village in Devikulam Taluk in the Government. Section 3 of the KDH Act reads as under: “3. Vesting of possession of certain lands. (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any contract or other document, but subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), with effect on and from the appointed day, the possession of all lands situate in the Kannan Devan Hills village in the Devikulam taluk of the Kottayam district shall stand transferred to and vest in the Government free from all encumbrances, and the right, title and interest of the lessees and all other persons, including rights of mortgagees and holders of encumbrances, in respect of such lands, shall stand extinguished. (2)Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply in respect of- (a)plantations, other than plantations belonging to trespassers ; (b) buildings, other than buildings belonging to trespassers, and lands appurtenant to, and necessary for the convenient enjoyment or use of, such buildings; (c) play-grounds and burial and burning grounds; and (d) lands in the possession of the Central Government or any State Government or the Kerala State Electricity Board. (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply in respect of so much extent of land held by a lessee under his personal cultivation as is within the ceiling limit applicable to him under any law for the time being in force or any building or structure standing thereon or appurtenant thereto”. 9. Section 9 of the KDH Act deals with assignment of such lands. The said Section reads as under: “9. 9. Section 9 of the KDH Act deals with assignment of such lands. The said Section reads as under: “9. Assignment of lands- (1) The Government shall, after reserving such extent of the lands, the possession of which has vested in the Government under sub-section (1) of section 3 (other than lands, the possession of which has been restored under section 4), as may be necessary for purposes directed towards the promotion of agriculture or the welfare of the agricultural population to be settled on such lands, assign on registry the remaining lands to agriculturists and agricultural labourers in such manner, on such terms and subject to such conditions and restrictions, as may be prescribed. (2) The Government may, by notification in the Gazette, delegate their power of assignment under sub-section (1) to the Collector, subject to such restrictions and control as may be specified in the notification.” 10. A reading of Section 9(2) of the KDH Act would make it clear that the power to assign the land vested in the Government under the provisions of the said Act is on the Government and such power can be delegated by notification in the Gazette to the District Collector. If the property is part of the vested land under the KDH Act, necessarily the provisions of the KDH Act and Rules made thereunder would apply for the assignment of that land. In the instant case, Ext.P3 patta relied on by the petitioner is issued by the Tahsildar and not by the District Collector. The Tahsildar is empowered to issue patta by following the procedure prescribed under the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960 (‘KLA Act’ in Short) and not under the KDH Act. 11. In Augustine K.B and another v. State of Kerala and others [ 2016 (2) KLJ 18 ] this Court considered a similar situation wherein patta was issued to the petitioner therein under the KLA Act instead of the KDH Act and held that since the land in question therein will not come within the exclusionary clause of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 3 and would come within the ambit of Section 3(1), the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 9(2) of the KDH Act should have to be strictly adhered to. In that situation, the assigning authority under Section 9(2) of the KDH Act and KDH Rules would either be the District Collector concerned or an officer of the rank of District Collector appointed by the Government for that purpose. The procedures to be followed in the case of assignment of land under the KLA Act and under the KDH Act are entirely different. 12. As per Section 4 of the KLA Act, it is the Tahsildar of the Taluk in which the land is situated or any officer empowered by the Government in that behalf is the authorized officer to issue Patta. Section 4 of the KLA Act reads as under: “4. Procedure to be followed before Government lands are assigned (1) When any Government land is proposed to be assigned by the prescribed authority, otherwise than by way of lease or licence, the Tahsildar of the taluk in which the land is situate or any officer empowered by the Government in this behalf shall notify in the prescribed manner that such land will, by public auction or otherwise, be assigned, and call upon those who have got any claim to such land to prefer to him their objections, if any, in writing, within a time which shall be specified in such notification. (2) If any objection is preferred within the time specified in the notification, the Tahsildar or such other officer shall enquire into the same and pass an order in writing either accepting or rejecting the claim in full or in part and intimate in writing the fact of such disposal to the claimant. (3) For the purposes of the enquiry under sub-section (2) the officer making the enquiry shall have all the powers conferred upon the Collectors and Tahsildars by the law for the time being in force regarding summoning of persons for disposal of matters connected with revenue administration.” 13. Though the petitioner claimed that the property having an extent of 8 cents in survey No.912 of KDH Village was in the possession of his parents for the last several decades, he did not produce any document showing that the property was in their possession prior to coming into force of the KDH Act on 21.01.1971. Though the petitioner claimed that the property having an extent of 8 cents in survey No.912 of KDH Village was in the possession of his parents for the last several decades, he did not produce any document showing that the property was in their possession prior to coming into force of the KDH Act on 21.01.1971. In order to claim exemption under Section 3(3)of the said Act, it has to be proved by the petitioner that the property in question was in his possession prior to 21.01.1971 under his personal cultivation as a lessee. As per the pleadings in the writ petition the building in the land was numbered as IX/160A by the Munnar Grama panchayat during the period 1987-1992. Ext.P1 document which is a certificate issued by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat showing possession of that building is dated 17.03.1993. As per that document, the building number in the assessment register was for the years 1987-1988 to 1991-1992. 14. The first request made by the petitioner to correct the survey number in Ext.P2 order of assignment and Ext P3 patta was by virtue of Ext.P4 application dated 05.06.2009 submitted before the 3 rd respondent District Collector. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No. 30507 of 2010 before this Court wherein Ext.P5 judgment dated 28.10.2010 was passed by this Court directing the 3 rd respondent District Collector to consider and pass orders in Ext.P4 application within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of that judgment. As per Ext.P6 order dated 29.10.2011 the 3 rd respondent rejected Ext.P4 application filed by the petitioner holding that the request for correction of survey number written in the patta is against the provision of the Rules. It was found in that order that the “patta was issued by the statutory authority after completing the procedure prescribed in the statute and Change of survey number in such a statutory document without completing the procedure prescribed for assignment of land comprised in new survey number to be incorporated in the patta is irregular and not allowable”. The petitioner then submitted an appeal before the 2 nd respondent Commissioner of Land Revenue and the appeal was dismissed by virtue of Ext.P7 order dated 05.01.2015. The petitioner then submitted an appeal before the 2 nd respondent Commissioner of Land Revenue and the appeal was dismissed by virtue of Ext.P7 order dated 05.01.2015. Again the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.7296 of 2015 before this Court and during the pendency of that writ petition Ext.P8 circular dated 30.10.2017 was issued by the 1 st respondent State of Kerala to permit the revenue authority to correct the survey number in deserving cases, if found necessary after completing the formalities of identifying the property with reference to the description of the same in the patta, etc. Thereafter the writ petition was disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P9 judgment dated 20.02.2020 directing the 5 th respondent Tahsildar to consider the request made by the petitioner for correction of the survey number in the order of assignment or patta after conducting all due verifications in the light of Ext.P8 circular. Again as per Ext.P10 order dated 08.01.2021 the 5 th respondent rejected the request of the petitioner on finding that the boundaries of the property are not tallying with Ext.P2 order of assignment and no files corresponding to the L.A. number is available in the office. Against Ext.P10 order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 4 th respondent. During the pendency of that appeal, Ext.P11 notice dated 11.2.2022 was issued under Section 12 of Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 by the 5 th respondent directing the petitioner to show cause, stating that he has been in unauthorized occupation of 9.043 cents in survey No.912 of Munnar Village. The petitioner then filed W.P.(C)No.7424 of 2022 before this Court seeking disposal of his appeal and not to proceed with Ext.P11 notice. As per Ext.P12 judgment dated 31.03.2022 this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the 4 th respondent to take a decision in the appeal and further directed to maintain status quo till the appeal is decided. Subsequently, by Ext.P13 order dated 06.10.2022 the 4 th respondent dismissed the appeal against which the petitioner submitted Ext.P14 revision petition dated 09.11.2022 under Rule 21(8) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1957, before the 2 nd respondent. Meanwhile, the 5 th respondent again issued Ext.P15 order dated 02.11.2022 directing the petitioner to vacate the land within seven days. Subsequently, by Ext.P13 order dated 06.10.2022 the 4 th respondent dismissed the appeal against which the petitioner submitted Ext.P14 revision petition dated 09.11.2022 under Rule 21(8) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1957, before the 2 nd respondent. Meanwhile, the 5 th respondent again issued Ext.P15 order dated 02.11.2022 directing the petitioner to vacate the land within seven days. The petitioner then filed W.P.(C)No.37449 of 2022 before this Court and by virtue of Ext.P16 judgment dated 22.11.2022 this court directed the 2 nd respondent to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner within three months and Ext.P15 order was directed to be kept in abeyance till such time. As per Ext.P17 order dated 11.04.2023 the 2 nd respondent dismissed Ext.P14 revision filed by the petitioner. It is thereafter the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 15. On 26.03.2024 when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to make available the entire files in L.A. No.32 of 2001 in which the petitioner claims that he was issued Ext.P3 patta to the property in question. But on 03.03.2025 when the matter was finally heard, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the file pertaining to L.A. No.32 of 2001 is not available in the office concerned and in fact the genuineness of such an L.A. number and patta issued therein is doubtful. The learned Senior Government Pleader produced the file pertaining to eviction proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act in a sealed cover, which contained a complaint filed by a lady before the District Collector, Idukki claiming that she is in occupation of the shed constructed in the property in question on rental basis as permitted by the petitioner’s wife and the petitioner is trying to evict her from that house. By the perusal of that file we could gather that after Ext.P17 decision in the revision petition filed by the petitioner, the eviction proceedings proceeded further and culminated by taking possession of the same by the 5 th respondent Tahsildar on 19.04.2023 and a board was affixed therein showing that it is the property of the Government. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in Ext.P24 assignment list the name of the petitioner is included and hence the contention of the Government that there were no assignment proceedings in favour of the petitioner is incorrect. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in Ext.P24 assignment list the name of the petitioner is included and hence the contention of the Government that there were no assignment proceedings in favour of the petitioner is incorrect. It is true that in Ext.P24 assignment list produced by the petitioner, his name is shown against serial No.1 as the person assigned with property in survey No.843A. The extent of that property is shown as 8 cents. But from the counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent and from the submissions made at the Bar, we notice that the file pertaining to assignment of the property to the petitioner is not available in the revenue office concerned. In Ext.P17 order the 2 nd respondent Land Revenue Commissioner found that the name of the petitioner is not therein in No.1 and No.2 registers. The number assigned to the building put up by the petitioner in the property is also a temporary number assigned to unauthorized construction under Sections 235A and 235W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. With the risk of repetition, we may say that Ext.P3 patta relied by the petitioner cannot be validated as the one issued in respect of the property in question by simply correcting the survey number, since it was not issued by the person authorised to issue the same under the KDH Act and there is no material to say that any procedure as contemplated under the KDH Act and Rules are followed in issuing such a patta, especially when the petitioner failed to place any materials on record to accept his contention that the property will fall under the exempted properties in Section 3(3) of the KDH Act. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no merits in the above writ petition. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. Registry shall return the file pertaining to the eviction proceedings initiated against the petitioner, in a sealed cover, to the learned Senior Government Pleader.