CASE TITLE – Jiji Zacharia & Anr. v. The Commissioner of Land Revenue & Ors.
CASE NUMBER – WA No. 918 OF 2023 & WP (C) No. 26746 OF 2020
DATED ON – 18.01.2024
QUORUM – Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque & Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen
FACTS OF THE CASE
The matter is related to cancellation of Patta and transfer of registry in respect of the land comprised in survey No.34/1 having an extent of 2.62 acres of Chinnakanal Village, Udumbanchola Taluk in Idukki District. A learned Single Judge of this Court heard the matter relating to the cancellation of Patta in W.P.(C) No.6954/2010 and affirmed the decision of revenue to cancel the Patta. This is how the writ appeal was filed. In the land in question, a resort is being run, namely, Green Jungle Resort. Chinnakanal Grama Panchayat refused to issue the license for running the resort. Accordingly, W.P. (C) No.26746/2020 was filed. The Tahsildar of Udumbanchola Village initiated proceedings for cancellation of the Patta as against Joy Thomas alleging that Patta had been illegally obtained. He cited six reasons in his show cause dated 10/4/2008 which reads as follows: 1) Application details are not found in Application Register and Assignment Register. 2) No Chalan or other receipts towards payment of land value and other charges are found in the file. 3) Date is not entered in the Office Сору оf Patta. 4) The published copy of 12(1) notice at Taluk Office is not available in the file. 5) In the Mahassar the land is described as CHR. 6) The date of application for assignment was 19.09.1977, and the date of order of assignment on registry was 22.4.1978. But the Patta is seen issued on 20.3.1993 only, after a lapse of 15 years without assigning any reason for the delay.
ISSUE
Whether the Patta obtained by Joy Thomas was obtained by lawful means.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- The Land Assignment Rules, 1964 primarily deal with the distribution of government land in Kerala, India, to eligible individuals and families.
- The Kerala Land Assignment (Regularisation of Occupations of Forest Lands Prior to 1-1- 1977) Special Rules, 1993, primarily deal with assigning government forest land to individuals who occupied it before January 1, 1977.
CONTENTIONS BY THE PETITIONERS
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Patta bears the seal of the competent authority and Patta cannot be cancelled for the reason that application details are not found in the application register and challan receipts are not found in the file. It was further argued that though the Land Revenue Commissioner in revision entered a finding that the land is situated in Cardamom Hill Reserve, however, such a finding was not entered by the Tahsildar at the first instance. Therefore, it was argued that the validity of the impugned order before the Revisional Authority cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons.
CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENTS
The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the land in question is situated in Cardamom Hill Reserve and in respect of land in Cardamom Hill Reserve, land cannot be assigned unless it is included in the list of assignable lands prepared pursuant to joint verification.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala observed that the land is situated in Cardamom Hill Reserve. The alleged mahazar produced in this matter by the parties show that it is Cardamom Hill Reserve. The learned Special Government Pleader also pointed out that the land in question is indeed a Cardamom Hill Reserve. Therefore, it is impossible to include it in the assignable list in the year 1977 for assignment of land under the Land Assignment Rules, 1964. In the statement filed by Joy Thomas, he also admits that the land is in Cardamom Hill Reserve puramboke, to mean that it is unfit for cardamom cultivation. In respect of converted land in Cardamom Hill Reserve where cardamom is cultivated, Special Rules 1993 would alone be applicable for claiming assignment by an encroacher. To claim assignment under the Special Rules 1993, he has to prove that the encroachment was prior to 1/1/1977, and the land has been included in the list of assignable lands. But in the present case, the parties have no case that the assignment was in accordance with the Special Rules 1993. In any way, the High Court was of the view that the petitioner cannot claim assignment of land under the Special Rules, 1993 for the reason that it was not included in the list prepared under Special Rules 1993. They stated that Joy Thomas was not eligible to apply under the Land Assignment Rules, 1964 as he was having 4 acres of land and his income was not proved to be less than Rs.10,000/-. It was in this background that the High Court was confident in stating that the patta was illegally obtained by Joy Thomas with the connivance of public officials or might have been fabricated. After which, the Hon’ble High Court proceeded to dismiss the Writ Appeal and also the Writ Petition filed by the parties challenging the refusal to issue the license to run the resort.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao
