MALANGADAN AMINA Vs. TAHSILDAR ERNAD TALUK OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition relates to proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. Petitioner's father Malangadan Alavi purchased 2 cents of land by a registered document in 1966. There was a shop room in that land. The petitioners father died in 1975. Thereafter the legal heirs of Malangadan Alavi partitioned the properties of Alavi by Ext.P1 partition deed and the 2 cents of land was alloted to the share of the petitioner, as item No.3 of the schedule to the said deed. Subsequently the revenue authorities is stated to have found out that the property measures only 2 cents and tax was collected in respect of these 2 cents. In respect of the building in the property, building tax was also being paid. The re-survey authorities re-surveyed the property and found that the property measures only 1 cents. The property was included in Block No. 71 and separate re-survey number was also given. Petitioner was therefore paying tax in respect of the 1 cents from 1978 and 1979 onwards. Petitioner was served with Ext.P2 notice under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, directing the petitioner to show cause why the petitioner should not be evicted from the property in question, on the allegation that the petitioner has encroached into puramboke land. Petitioner has filed Ext.P3 objections but the petitioner has been served with Ext.P9 order directing the petitioner to vacate the properties. It is under the above circumstances, petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs;

(2.) THE petitioner claims that the petitioner has been in possession of this property for over 30 years and the revenue authorities have also accepted the fact that the same belongs to the petitioner by accepting tax in respect of the property. Therefore, the proceedings initiated under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act is clearly without jurisdiction is the contention raised.

(3.) IN view of the discrepancies in the survey numbers, I do not think that this Court can decide the matter. Therefore the appropriate course of action open to the petitioner is to file an appeal against Ext.P9 as provided under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, in which the petitioner can canvass questions of facts also to explain the discrepancies pointed out by the learned Government Pleader. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: If the petitioner files an appeal against Ext.P9 within two weeks from today, the appellate authority shall treat the appeal as one filed within time and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously. If the petitioner files the appeal as directed above, the interim stay passed by this Court will continue to be in force till orders are passed in the appeal to be filed by the petitioner.