*Ravindran vs State Of Kerala on 6 March, 2024

[Cites 31, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

*Ravindran vs State Of Kerala on 6 March, 2024

This DBP is registered suo motu, vide proceedings dated 09.01.2024, based on a complaint dated 01.12.2023 received from one Raveendran, wherein it is alleged that one Balakrishna Pai has encroached Devaswom land by constructing a compound wall on the western side of the temple maidan of Thaliyil Sree Mahadeva Temple, which is a temple under the management of the 2nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board. As per the revenue records, the property where the said compound wall is constructed is described as 'Devaswom land'. The complainant has also produced certain photographs to show the alleged encroachment.

2. On 11.01.2024, when this matter came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to get instructions.

3. The 4th respondent, Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy), has filed an affidavit dated 05.02.2024. Paragraphs 1 to 6 of that affidavit read thus;

"3. It is submitted that Thaliyil Sree Mahadeva Temple, Kottayam is a scheduled temple functioning under the sub group Parappadam of Kottayam group of Travancore Devaswom Board. The aforesaid D.B.P. is registered based 4 DBP No.11 of 2024 upon the complaint submitted by Mr.Raveendran alleging encroachment with regard to the property of Thaliyil Sree Mahadeva Temple, Kottayam.

4. It is submitted that the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Kottaym, was informed to forward all Revenue and Devaswom records concerning the ownership of Thaliyil Devaswom. Subsequently, on 22.01.2024, the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner had forwarded the copy of the Settlement register and a rough sketch of the temple site to his office. Following this, on 23.01.2024, the Head Surveyor and Revenue Inspector had visited the temple site, after collecting revenue records available at Kottayam Village.

5. It may be noted that as per the settlement register of Kottayam Pakuthi in Kottayam Taluk, Thaliyil Sree Mahadeva temple has the right of ownership over 4.25 acres of puramboke land in settlement Survey No.122/21-1. But as per the Devaswom Land Register kept by Sub Group Officer, it is seen that the Devaswom has an area of 1.58 acres of land in old Survey No.122/21-12. On verification of the settlement register and other records, it is seen that Sub Divisions have been created in the Old Survey No.122/21. Yet no document has been received to prove that how the Sub Division was carried out. The site inspection conducted on 23.01.2024 reveals that the property subject to the complaint is occupied by Sri.Balakrishna Pai, the alleged encroacher. This property was purchased by his father Sri.Venkitesh Pai from Sri. Balakrishna Panicker who obtained Purchase Certificate for 19 cents from the Special Munsiff Land Tribunal, Kottayam as per Order No.41/1972. Out of the 19 cents he sold 3.25 cent to another person. He claimed that among the rest of the land around 6 cent is developed as 5 DBP No.11 of 2024 pathway in front of the temple and road on the west side. And also now he is paying tax for 4.10 Ares in Re.Survey No.126/29. The premises of the temple are exempted from the provisions of Land Reforms Act as per Section 3(1)(X). Therefore, the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue the purchase certificate u/s.72B of the Act. The said purchase certificate will not sustain in view of the judgments rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Gopalakrishnan A.A. v. Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board, Thrissur and Ors. [2018 (3) KHC 549], Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [2013 (3) KLT 132] and Jayaprakashan K. v. State of Kerala [2023 (3) KLT 541].

6. It is further submitted that as per old revenue records, the temple land in Survey No.122-21-1 was recorded as puramboke land. In Re-Survey BTR.76.72 Ares (190 cents) of land in Re-Survey No.126/36 is recorded as 'Sarkar Poramboke Temple'. Out of 4.25 acres of puramboke land which was marked as Devaswom Poramboke in Survey Settlement, only 1.90 acres of land has been returned as Devaswom Poramboke and the rest of the land has been prepared in the revenue records in favour of several private individuals. Given the complexity of the situation, a detailed enquiry into relevant settlement and resurvey records, alongside verification of land holders documents, is necessary to ascertain whether encroachment has occurred in Devaswom land. Consequently this office has informed the Devaswom and Revenue authorities to furnish the relevant documents. Thus this respondent requests this Hon'ble Court to consider the foregoing submissions and a comprehensive final report will be promptly submitted upon completion of the enquiry."

4. By the order dated 19.02.2024, the learned Standing 6 DBP No.11 of 2024 Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to obtain the details of those who are presently in occupation of the 19 cents of land, for impleading them as additional respondents.

5. Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that in addition to the aforesaid Balakrishna Pai, certain others are also in occupation of the Devaswom land, the details of which are yet to be ascertained by the 4th respondent Special Tahsildar.

6. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 2 to 5.

7. 'Deva' means God and 'swom' means ownership in Sanskrit and the term 'Devaswom' denotes the property of God in common parlance. See: Prayar Gopalakrishnan and another v. State of Kerala and others [2018 (1) KHC 536].

8. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards are required to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and 7 DBP No.11 of 2024 safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of 'fence eating the crops' should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation.

9. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan, on the facts of the case on hand, the Apex Court noticed that, when Respondents 3 to 5 claimed ownership of Survey No.1043, which was the front portion of the temple premises in the possession of the temple (in the proposal for settlement dated 06.07.2000), the Devaswom Board, instead of investigating and verifying as to how they could claim ownership over temple property, strangely agreed for a settlement under which the temple was to get Sy.No.1043 (which was a temple land already in its possession), in exchange for giving away another temple land (Sy.No.1042/2) to Respondents 3 to 5. The Board Resolution dated 29.08.2000 8 DBP No.11 of 2024 agreeing for the settlement proposal clearly records that Sy.No.1043 is already in the possession of the temple. Before the Apex Court, respondents 3 and 4 contended that the settlement in the suit (O.S.No.399 of 1998) was validly arrived at between them (the plaintiffs) and the Devaswom Board (the defendant), that the Devaswom Board had considered the proposal after taking legal advice and had duly passed a resolution to settle the suit. It was further contended that a decree having been made in terms of the compromise and such decree having attained finality, it cannot be questioned, interfered or set aside at the instance of a third party in a writ proceeding. They relied on the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. The Apex Court held that, the bar contained in Order XXIII, Rule 3A will not come in the way of the High Court examining the validity of a compromise decree, when allegations of fraud/collusion are made against a statutory authority which entered into such compromise. While it is true that decrees of civil courts which have attained finality should not be interfered with lightly, challenge to such compromise decrees by an aggrieved devotee, who was not a party to the suit, cannot be 9 DBP No.11 of 2024 rejected, where fraud/collusion on the part of officers of a statutory board is made out. Further, when the High Court by the order dated 09.09.1998 had directed the Board to take possession of Sy.No.1042/2 immediately from Respondents 3 and 4 in CDB No.3 of 1996, in a complaint by another devotee, it was improper for the Board to enter into a settlement with Respondents 2 and 3, giving up the right, title and interest in Sy.No.1042/2, without the permission of the court which passed such order. The Apex Court concluded that, viewed from any angle, the compromise decree cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

10. In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [2013 (3) KLT 132] a Division Bench of this Court noticed that in A.A. Gopalakrishnan [(2007) 7 SCC 482] the Apex Court emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and charitable institutions. The relevant principles under the Hindu law will show that the Deity is always treated similar to that of a minor and there are some points of similarity between a minor and a Hindu idol. The High Court therefore is the guardian of the Deity and apart from the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, 1957 viz. the powers of revision, the High 10 DBP No.11 of 2024 Court is having inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. Therefore, when a complaint has been raised by the Temple Advisory Committee, which was formed by the devotees of the Temple, about the loss of properties of the Temple itself, the truth of the same can be gone into by the High Court in these proceedings.

11. In Mohanan Nair [2013 (3) KLT 132] the Division Bench relied on the decision in Achuthan Pillai v. State of Kerala [1970 KLT 838], wherein a Full Bench of this Court considered the validity of an order passed by the Government under Section 99 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. By the said order the Government cancelled the sanction given for transfer of immovable property of a Devaswom. The initial order, i.e., Ext.P1 order was passed by the Commissioner for sanction to lease 600 acres of forest land belonging to Emoor Bhagavathy Devaswom. The said order was passed in the year 1960 and the Government cancelled the same by Ext.P5 order dated 23.02.1967. The Full Bench traced the principles regarding the rights of an authority to protect the institution like Devaswom in order to prevent fraud. The Full Bench held that the power to cancel a sanction and thereby to make null and void an improvident transfer or alienation of 11 DBP No.11 of 2024 immovable property of a Devaswom, though exercised under the guise of revision, is visitorial in character. It is a matter of common knowledge that even from very early times religious and charitable institutions in India came under the special protection of the ruling authority. The rulers of the country always asserted their right to visit these institutions in order to prevent fraud and redress the abuses in their management. In the celebrated Rameswar Pagoda case [(1874) 1 Ind App 209] it was pointed out by the Judicial Committee that the former rulers of this country always asserted the right to visit endowments of this kind to prevent and redress the abuses in their management. The authorities, therefore, support the conclusion that supervision and control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions is a function of government and that Government at all times asserted and exercised the power. The fact that Government did not exercise the power immediately when it became aware of the circumstances vitiating Ext.P1 order cannot prejudice the interest of the Devaswom. If the contentions of the petitioner were to prevail, it would mean that because the Government was not very vigilant in exercising the power the interest of the Devaswom should suffer. Section 10 of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides no period of limitation for a 12 DBP No.11 of 2024 suit against a person in whom the trust property has become vested for any specific purpose or against his legal representatives or assigns for the purpose of following in his or their hands such property. The reason behind the section is that an express trust ought not suffer by the misfeasance or non- feasance of a trustee.

12. In Nandakumar v. District Collector and others [2018 (2) KHC 58] a Division Bench of this Court noticed that the legal position has been made clear by the Apex Court as to the role to be played by the High Court in exercising the 'parens patriae' jurisdiction in Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482]. The said decision was referred to and relied on by a Division Bench of this Court in Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [2013 (3) KLT 132]. In the said circumstances, the properties of the Devaswom, if at all encroached by anybody and if any assignment/conveyance has been effected without the involvement of the Devaswom, securing 'pattayam' or such other deeds, the same cannot confer any right upon the parties concerned, unless the title so derived is clear in all respects. There cannot be any dispute that the remedy to retrieve such property belonging to the Devaswom is by resorting to the course stipulated in the Kerala Land 13 DBP No.11 of 2024 Conservancy Act, 1957.

13. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board [2018 (3) KHC 549] a Division Bench of this Court found that the task undertaken by the complainant to ensure that the property of the Devaswom is protected and preserved has ultimately brought out the plain truth that the said property was sought to be appropriated by strangers and that the property in Sy.No.1042/2 has been successfully retrieved by the Devaswom, based on the intervention made by this Court and also by the Apex Court in A.A. Gopalakrishnan [(2007) 7 SCC 482]. Proceedings have to be taken to a logical conclusion in respect of the land in Sy.No. 1043 as well. This is more so since in view of the 'parens patriae' jurisdiction being entrusted with the Court in this regard, there is a duty cast upon the Court to take every step to ensure that the property of the deity is protected.

14. In Jayaprakashan K. v. State of Kerala and others [2023 (3) KHC SN 14 : 2023 (3) KLT 541] a Division Bench of this Court, in which one among us (Anil K. Narendran, J.) was a party, noticed that in view of the provisions under sub- section (1) of Section 3 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, nothing in Chapter II (i.e., provisions regarding tenancies) shall 14 DBP No.11 of 2024 apply to leases or tenancies of land referred to in clauses (i) to

(xii) of the said sub-section. As per clause (x) of sub-section (1) of Section 3, nothing in Chapter II shall apply to tenancies in respect of sites, tanks and premises of any temple, mosque or church (including sites belonging to a temple, mosque or church on which religious ceremonies are conducted) and sites of office buildings and other buildings attached to such temple, mosque or church, created by the owner, trustee or manager of such temple, mosque or church. In view of the provisions under sub- section (1) of Section 74, after the commencement of the Act, no tenancy shall be created in respect of any land. As per sub- section (2) of Section 74, any tenancy created in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be invalid. In view of the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 57, as soon as may be after the receipt of the application under Section 54, the Land Tribunal shall give notice to the landowner, the intermediaries and all other persons interested in the holding, to prefer claims or objections with regard to the application. As per sub-section (2) of Section 57, the land Tribunal shall, after considering the claims and objections received and hearing any person appearing in pursuance of the notice issued under sub- section (1) and after making due enquiries, pass orders - (i) on 15 DBP No.11 of 2024 the application, if any, pending before it from the landowner or intermediary for resumption in accordance with the provisions of Section 22; and (ii) on the application for purchase under Section 54. In view of the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 72, on a date to be notified by the Government in this behalf in the Gazette, all right, title and interest of the landowners and intermediaries in respect of holdings held by cultivating tenants (including holders of kudiyiruppus and holders of karaimas) entitled to fixity of tenure under Section 13 and in respect of which certificates of purchase under sub-section (2) of Section 59 have not been issued, shall, subject to the provisions of this section, vest in the Government free from all encumbrances created by the landowners and intermediaries and subsisting thereon on the said date. In view of the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 72B, the cultivating tenant of any holding or part of a holding, the right, title and interest in respect of which have vested in the Government under Section 72, shall be entitled to assignment of such right, title and interest. As per clause (a) to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 72B, no cultivating tenant shall be entitled to assignment of the right, title and interest in respect of any holding or part of a holding under this section if he, or if he is a member of a 16 DBP No.11 of 2024 family, such family, owns an extent of land not less than the ceiling area. As per clause (b) to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 72B, where the cultivating tenant or, if he is a member of a family, such family, does not own any land or owns an extent of land which is less than the ceiling area, he shall be entitled to the assignment of the right, title and interest in respect of only such extent of land as will, together with the land, if any, owned by him or his family, as the case may be, be equal to the ceiling area. In view of the provisions under sub- section (1) of Section 72BB, any landowner or intermediary whose right, title and interest in respect of any holding have vested in the Government may apply to the Land Tribunal for the assignment of such right, title and interest to the cultivating tenant and for the payment of the compensation due to him under Section 72A. As per Section 72C, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of Section 72B or Section 72BB, the Land Tribunal may, subject to such rules as may be made by the Government in this behalf, at any time after the vesting of the right, title and interest of the landowners and intermediaries in the Government under Section 72, assign such right, title and interest to the cultivating tenants entitled thereto, and the cultivating tenants shall be bound to accept such 17 DBP No.11 of 2024 assignment. In view of the provisions under Section 72F, the Land Tribunal has to issue notices and determine the compensation and purchase price. As per sub-section (1) of Section 72F, as soon as may be after the right, title and interest of the landowner and the intermediaries, if any, in respect of a holding or part of a holding have vested in the Government under Section 72, or, where an application under Section 72B or Section 72BB has been received by the Land Tribunal, as soon as may be after the receipt of such application, the Land Tribunal shall publish or cause to be published a public notice in the prescribed form in such manner as may be prescribed, calling upon the landowner, the intermediaries, if any and cultivating tenant; and all other persons interested in the land, the right, title and interest in respect of which have vested in the Government, to prefer claims and objections, if any, within such time as may be specified in the notice and to appear before it on the date specified in the notice with all relevant records to prove their respective claims or in support of their objections. As per the mandate of sub-section (5) of Section 72F, the land Tribunal shall, after considering the claims and objections received in pursuance of the notice issued under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) and the advice received from the village committee 18 DBP No.11 of 2024 or village committees before the date specified therefor and hearing any person appearing in pursuance of the notice issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) and after making due enquiries, pass an order specifying the matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) of sub-section (5). As per sub-section (1) of Section 72K, as soon as may be after the determination of the purchase price under Section 72F or the passing of an order under sub-section (3) of Section 72MM the Land Tribunal shall issue a certificate of purchase to the cultivating tenant, and thereupon the right, title and interest of the landowner and the intermediaries, if any, in respect of the holding or part thereof to which the certificate relates, shall vest in the cultivating tenant free from all encumbrances created by the landowner or the intermediaries if any.

15. In Jayaprakashan K. [2023 (3) KHC SN 14] the Division Bench, on an analysis of the aforesaid provisions under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, found that the said Act is a complete code by itself as far as the right of cultivating tenant to fixity of tenure in respect of his holding, the right of the cultivating tenant to get assignment of the right, title and interest in respect of his holdings, the determination by the Land Tribunal the compensation and purchase price and the issuance 19 DBP No.11 of 2024 of purchase certificate to the cultivating tenant. The provisions under the said Act deal with the application for the purchase of the landlord's right by the cultivating tenant and the procedure for consideration of the application by the Land Tribunal, with notice to the landowner, the intermediaries, if any, the cultivating tenant and all persons interested in the land, calling upon them to prefer claims and objections, if any, and after making due enquiries. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal shall issue a certificate of purchase to the cultivating tenant. In view of the provisions under the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, where the Land Tribunal is of the opinion that an application for purchase certificate has to be allowed, it shall, before it passes an order under Section 57, prepare preliminary findings on the matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (m) of sub-rule (1) of Rule

55. The Land Tribunal shall issue a notice of its findings to the landowner, every intermediary, etc., calling upon them to prefer in writings claims for the purchase price or part thereof. On receipt of the objections or claims, if any, the Land Tribunal shall consider the same and decide the claims after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties to produce such evidence as may be necessary and then proceed to pass an order under Section 57 of the Act. In such an order passed by the Land Tribunal on an 20 DBP No.11 of 2024 application filed under Section 54 of the Act by the cultivating tenant for purchase of landlord's right, the Land Tribunal has to record its finding that the applicant is a cultivating tenant, as defined under clause (8) of Section 2 of the Act, who is entitled to fixity of tenure under Section 13 of the Act, in respect of his holding. The tenancy is not in respect of land falling under clauses (i) to (xii) of Section 3 of the Act, which deals with exemptions. The tenancy is not one created in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 74 of the Act, i.e., it is not a tenancy created after the commencement of the Act. It is well settled that, when the statute requires to do certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods or modes of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. The said proposition of law is based on a legal maxim 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius' meaning thereby that, if the statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner, and following other course is not permissible. The said proposition of law about limitation of the exercise of statutory power has first been identified by Jassel M.R. in the case of Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch.D. 426], wherein it was laid down that, where a power is given to do a certain thing in a 21 DBP No.11 of 2024 certain way, that thing must be done in that way, or not at all, and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. The Privy Council applied the said principle in the case of Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor [AIR 1936 PC 253]. In Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All ER 1148) Lord Denning, M.R. observed that the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 ICR 120) it was observed that failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision- taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. By the order dated 15.12.2021 in W.P.(C)No.8851 of 2020, this Court restrained all Land Tribunals in the State from proceedings with any Original Application filed before the appointed date or S.M.Proceedings for purchase certificate in respect of Devaswom lands of Temples under the control/ management of Malabar Devaswom Board, Travancore Devaswom Board and also the Cochin Devaswom Board, without the respective Devaswom Board, represented by its Secretary, in the party array. In the said order, it was made clear that a copy of the Original Application or the report and other materials based on which S.M.Proceedings are initiated shall be enclosed 22 DBP No.11 of 2024 along with the notice issued to the concerned Devaswom Board, through the concerned Village Officer. The Land Tribunals were directed to afford a reasonable opportunity to the concerned Devaswom Board to raise its contentions, both legal and factual. It was made clear that the decision taken by the Land Tribunals shall be one reflecting the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides.

16. In Jayaprakashan K. [2023 (3) KHC SN 14], in continuation of the order dated 15.12.2021 in W.P.(C)No.8851 of 2020, it was ordered that, in the orders passed by the Land Tribunals in the State in Original Applications/S.M.Proceedings for purchase certificate, the Land Tribunal has to record its findings that the applicant is a cultivating tenant, as defined under clause (8) of Section 2 of the Act, who is entitled to fixity of tenure under Section 13 of the Act, in respect of his holding; that the tenancy is not in respect of land falling under clauses (i) to (xii) of Section 3 of the Act, which deals with exemptions; and that the tenancy is not one created in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 74 of the Act, i.e., it is not a tenancy created after the commencement of the Act. In respect of temples which are controlled institutions under Malabar Devaswom Board, the Land Tribunals shall take note of 23 DBP No.11 of 2024 the provisions under Section 29 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, as per which any exchange, sale or mortgage and any lease of any immovable property belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution shall be null and void unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the institution.

17. In the complaint filed by the complainant it is alleged that one Balakrishna Pai has encroached Devaswom land by constructing a compound wall on the western side of the temple maidan of Thaliyil Sree Mahadeva Temple, which is a temple under the management of the 2nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board. The stand taken in the affidavit dated 05.02.2024 filed by the 4th respondent Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy Unit) is that along with Balakrishna Pai, certain others are also in occupation of 19 cents of Devaswom land.

18. We do not propose to consider the factual disputes relating to the alleged encroachment of the Devaswom land of Thaliyil Sree Mahadeva Temple, since it is a matter which requires consideration by the 4th respondent Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy), with proper notice to the alleged encroachers, after complying with the statutory requirements, 24 DBP No.11 of 2024 and taking note of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra.

19. In such circumstances, this DBP is disposed of by directing the 4th respondent Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy) to proceed with the matter relating to the alleged encroachment of the Devaswom land of Thaliyil Sree Mahadeva Temple, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the statutory provisions referred to herein before and the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, with proper notice to the alleged encroachers and after affording them a reasonable opportunity to substantiate their contentions. A copy of this order shall be enclosed along with the notice issued to the alleged encroachers and the 4th respondent Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy) shall finalise the proceedings initiated against the alleged encroachers under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. That proceedings shall be with notice to the petitioner - complainant.

20. Registry to communicate a copy of this order to the petitioner - complainant by registered post with acknowledgment due.

DBP No.11 of 2024

The 4th respondent Special Tahsildar shall file an action taken report before the learned Ombudsman, within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It would be open to the learned Ombudsman to file reports before this Court, in case further directions are necessary. Registry to communicate a copy of this order along with a copy of the DBP to the learned Ombudsman.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

G. GIRISH, JUDGE AV/7/3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court