IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27256 of 2010(F)
1. SRI.M.DURAI, S/O.MADAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM TALUK,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.M.VARGHESE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :02/09/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 27256 of 2010 F
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the occupant of property comprised in
Survey No.61/11 of KDH Village. He approached the second
respondent complaining that he is proposed to be evicted from the
land. Accordingly, the matter was considered with notice to the
petitioner and Ext.P4 order has been issued. After considering the
contentions of the petitioner including the genuineness of Ext.P1
patta, the District Collector came to the following findings:-
” In the meanwhile the Tahsildar,
Devikulam has reported that, on verification of
the documents, it was found out that there was no
assignment made as LA.39/80 in the year 1980,
from his office. Only one Land Assignment
Order was issued in 1980. It was in favour of
Smt.Mary Alphonsa, New Colony, Munnar as
LA.1/80. Moreover, the boundaries of the
property are mentioned differently in the Patta,
in the survey sketch and in the possession
certificate.
The petitioner was present for the hearing
WPC.27256/2010
: 2 :
conducted on 28-01-2009. But he could not
produce any valid documents to prove his right
over the property. Exhibits P1 to P5 are bogus
documents and do not warrant any right to the
petitioner over the plaint schedule property.
Verification of the documents and the
report of the Tahsildar, prove the case is one of
fabrication of fake documents in order to grab
Govt. Land which in turn is a criminal offence.
The petitioner’s application for assignment also
cannot be considered on merit, because he is an
unauthorised occupant of Govt. land. The land
in question is Puramboke. Moreover the
petitioner is not in actual possession of the
property.
In the above circumstances, the
application for assignment, Exhibited as P9 is
declined.
The Tahsildar, Devikulam will file FIR
against those who fabricated the documents and
will proceed further in the matter.”
2. Ext.P5 appeal filed by the petitioner before the first
respondent was also rejected by Ext.P8. It is challenging Exts.P4
and P8, the writ petition is filed.
WPC.27256/2010
: 3 :
3. The finding in the impugned orders is that patta, on the
strength of which the petitioner is setting up his possession, is a
bogus one. Nothing has been produced in this writ petition to infer
that the said conclusion is erroneous. Even otherwise,
genuineness of patta, which the petitioner will have to establish,
can be done only in a civil suit and not in a proceedings under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In these circumstances,
the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and I do so.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner is in
possession of the land. Therefore, it is clarified that his eviction, if
ordered, will be only in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks
// True Copy //
P.A. To Judge