Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. We heard Sri.T.Krishnanunni, the leaned senior counsel for the petitioners in both the cases, Sri.Manojkumar, learned counsel for the party respondents and Sri.Muhammed Shah, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State and other functionaries functioning under the first respondent and also perused the records.

15. The learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases submitted that the contesting party respondents have no manner of right over the property and they are not claiming any right as well. Admittedly, the property originally belong to the declarant in the ceiling case and as far as the property claimed by the petitioner in WP(C) No.2636/13 is concerned, the Taluk Land Board, Koyilandy found that the family had no excess land and dropped further proceedings. As regards the petitioner in WP(C) No.2637/13 is concerned, the ceiling case is still pending and earlier, the Taluk Land Board, Tirurangadi  without giving notice to interested parties, including the declarant, passed Ext.R5(a) impugned order and that was questioned by Mohanan Namboothiri, the son of the declarant and this Court by Ext.R5(b) order, set aside the same and remanded the matter to the Taluk Land Board Tirurangadi for fresh consideration. It is seen from the reports submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the Taluk Land Board passed an order directing the declarant to surrender 135 acres of land including 2.208 acres of land now claimed by both the petitioners in Survey NO.193/2 of Peruvallur Village and the same has been questioned by the declarant before this Court and this Court has stayed the proceedings of the Taluk Land Board, Tirurangadi. There is no dispute that the properties were in the possession of the petitioners in both the cases. Even assuming that the properties are included in the ceiling proceedings, that alone is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the petitioners have lost their right in the  property. Further, till they are evicted from the property by the Government under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, they are entitled to be in possession of the property as owners of the property and that cannot be questioned by the party respondents, who have no manner of right in the property in an organised manner. Under such circumstances, the petitioners have no other remedy except to approach this Court for removing the encroachment and granting protection to the petitioners to enjoy the property and so, he prayed for allowing the petition.