Kerala High Court
Akhil Louiz vs District Collector, Ernakulam on 10 April, 2026
2026:KER:32953
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 21897 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
AKHIL LOUIZ
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O K. GEORGE LOUIZ, KUNDUNGAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
CHERIYAKADAVU MURI, PALLURUTHI VILLAGE, KANNAMALI P O,
KOCHI, PIN-682 008, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER AND MOTHER SHINE GEORGE, W/O K GEORGE LOUIZ,
AGED 51, KUNDUNGAMPARAMBIL, HOUSE, CHERIYAKADAVU MURI,
PALLURUTHI VILLAGE, KANNAMALI P O, KOCHI, PIN-682 008.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.VINOD BHAT
KUM.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN
SMT.V.NAMITHA
SMT.GITANJALI SADAN PILLAI
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682035.
2 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN
682035.
3 THE TAHASILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 683513.
4 THE TALUK SURVEYOR,
TALUK OFFICE, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN 683513.
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
MOOTHAKUNNAM VILLAGE OFFICE, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM,
PIN -683513.
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -2-
2026:KER:32953
6 THE TAHASILDAR (LAND RECORDS),
TALUK OFFICE, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
683513.
7 ADDL. SHAJAHAN S.
(SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED)
8 ADDL. PRIYA
(SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED)
9 ADDL. R9. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO REVENUE
(SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED)
0 ADDL. R10. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
(SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED)
GP- ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.04.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).13004/2023, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -3-
2026:KER:32953
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 13004 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
AKHIL LOUIZ
AGED 25 YEARS
AKHIL LOUIZ, S/O K GEORGE LOUIZ, AGED 25,
KUNDUNGAMPARAMBIL, HOUSE, CHERIYAKADAVU MURI,
PALLURUTHI VILLAGE, KANNAMALI P O, KOCHI-PIN- 682008
REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND MOTHER
SHINE GEORGE, W/O K GEORGE LOUIZ, AGED 51,
KUNDUNGAMPARAMBIL, HOUSE, CHERIYAKADAVU MURI,
PALLURUTHI VILLAGE, KANNAMALI P O, KOCHI
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SACHU THOMAS
SRI.S.VINOD BHAT
KUM.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN
SMT.V.NAMITHA
SMT.GITANJALI SADAN PILLAI
RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682035
2 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682035
3 THE TAHASILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
683513
4 THE TALUK SURVEYOR
TALUK OFFICE, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
683513
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -4-
2026:KER:32953
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
MOOTHAKUNNAM VILLAGE OFFICE, NORTH PARAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513
6 THE TAHASILDAR (LAND RECORDS)
TALUK OFFICE, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
683513
BY GP - ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.04.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).21897/2022, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -5-
2026:KER:32953
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2026
Since common issues are involved in these writ petitions, they
are heard and disposed of by a common judgment. WP(C) No.21897
of 2022 has been filed challenging Ext.P25 notice issued as per the
provisions of the Land Conservancy Act for evicting the alleged
encroachment made by the petitioner in respect of 1.37 ares of land
in Sy.No.46/1 of Moothukunnam Village. Whereas WP(C) No.13004 of
2023 is filed challenging Ext.P34 order issued by the 1st respondent
rejecting the request of the petitioner for issuance of an NOC.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petitions are as
follows:-
Petitioner is the owner in possession of 2.41 ares of land situated in
Sy.Nos.75/25-2-5, 46/1-19-4 and 46/1-59 of Moothukunnam Village
obtained as per Ext.P1 sale deed executed in the year 2020.
Petitioner has been paying tax in respect of the said property, as
evident from Ext.P2, and Exts.P3 & P4 possession certificate and
location sketch, respectively, were also issued in respect of the
subject property. Petitioner submitted an application dated
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -6-2026:KER:32953
15.11.2020 with all relevant documents for issuance of a No
Objection Certificate to install and operate a diesel dispensation
pump. The said application, produced as Ext.P5, was forwarded by
the 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent for necessary enquiry and
report, as per Ext.P6 letter. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent, after
conducting a detailed enquiry, submitted Ext.P7 report stating that
there is no puramboke in the said property. Unsatisfied with Ext.P7
report, the 1st respondent again directed the 3rd respondent to
conduct a further detailed enquiry as per Ext.P8 communication, and
pursuant to the same, 3rd respondent again conducted an enquiry
and submitted Ext.P9 report again stating that there is no puramboke
in the said property and the property is in the nature of a
‘purayidom’. The prior deeds of Ext.P1 sale deed are Ext.P10 sale
deed bearing No. 1563/1994 of Paravoor SRO, and the prior deed of
Ext.P10 is a pattayam bearing No. EF 53/1994 dated 21.01.1994.
3. It is submitted that out of 2.41 ares of land covered by
Ext.P1, 1.33 ares of land is situated in Sy.No.75/25-5 of which Ext.P11
is the prior deed, a document executed by the managing trustee of
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -7-
2026:KER:32953
Jan Muhammed Haji Essa Seit Trust, and since the said property was
vested in the said Trust, the Kerala Wakf Board has granted
permission to sell the property as per proceedings bearing
No.B8/3339/RA dated 14.06.1982. It is further submitted that the
prior deed of Ext.P11 is a registered will deed No.15/1119 ME of
Ernakulam SRO. It is submitted that jetty license was also issued, as
evident from Ext.P12 from the Port Conservator, and Ext.P13 is the
site plan. Since there was an inordinate delay in considering Ext.P5
application for issuance of an NOC, petitioner approached this Court,
filing WP(C) No.26379 of 2021, and during the pendency of the said
writ petition, the 4th respondent conducted a survey without notice
to the petitioner and submitted Ext.P14 report and sketch. On the
basis of Ext.P14, the said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P15
judgment directing the disposal of Ext.P5 application. The 2nd
respondent rejected Ext.P5 as per Ext.P16 on the ground that a
portion of the property consists of ‘puramboke’. Petitioner would
submit that, to the erstwhile owner of the property, a No Objection
Certificate has already been issued by the 2nd respondent as Ext.P17
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -8-
2026:KER:32953
dated 14.06.2013, for which the 3rd respondent has issued Ext.P18
possession certificate for establishment of a diesel outlet. The prior
deed of Ext.P10 which is the prior deed of Ext.P1 is Ext.P19 patta.
The tandaper account of the property covered by Ext.P1 is produced
as Ext.P20, and the tandaper register as Ext.P22. A perusal of
Ext.P21 reveals that the total extent of property is 2.41 ares of
purayidom, and Ext.P20 reveals that in respect of 1.33 ares of land
situated in Sy.No.71/25-5, the petitioner is the ‘pattadar’. Aggrieved
by Ext.P16, the petitioner again approached this Court, filing WP(C)
No.2735 of 2022 and this Court, by Ext.P24 order set aside Ext.P16
proceedings and directed Ext.P5 application to be reconsidered in the
light of Exts.P1, P2 and P3 documents also. Without even complying
with the said direction, Ext.P25 notice was issued invoking the power
under Section 12 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1967, directing
the petitioner to appear before the 6th respondent. It is aggrieved by
the same that WP(C) No.21897 of 2022 has been filed. In WP(C)
No.13004 of 2023, the petitioner submits that, in the meanwhile,
Ext.P34 order has been issued again rejecting the request of the
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -9-
2026:KER:32953
petitioner for issuance of an NOC, holding that the subject property
contains puramboke land also.
4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 6th
respondent in answer to the averment in WP(C) No.21897 of 2022,
wherein it is submitted that though the petitioner claimed to have
title and possession over 2.41 ares of land, no documents have been
produced before the competent authority to prove title in respect of
1.67 ares of property. The land was measured by the Taluk Surveyor
and Ext.R6(a) report was filed, wherein it is found that the petitioner
has trespassed into 1.37 ares of land along with the Government land
comprised in Sy.No.46/1 of Moothukunnam Village, and on finding
that the petitioner has encroached upon the puramboke land Ext.P2
notice in Form C was issued. The learned Government Pleader also
relied on Exts.R6(c) and R6(d) report and sketch prepared by the
Taluk Surveyor, which was done pursuant to the direction issued by
this Court in the judgment dated 01.10.2024 and submits that the
petitioner has encroached upon Government land and therefore
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -10-
2026:KER:32953
proceedings were initiated. The counter affidavit filed in WP(C)
No.21897 of 2022 was adopted in WP(C) No.13004 of 2023.
5. Petitioner, relying on the further documents produced in
WP(C) No.13004 of 2023, submits that the claim of possession and
title over the subject property is beyond any dispute. Ext.P35 is the
true copy of the letter issued by the Secretary, Kerala Wakf Board on
14.01.1982, whereby final sanction was granted for the sale of 38.60
ares of land comprised in Sy.No.46/1. Ext.P6 is the reply given by the
State Public Information Officer, which provides that 121 cents of
property in Sy.No.75/25 and 30 cents of property in Sy.No.46/1 is
included in the Wakf register. Petitioner also relies on Ext.P39 site
plan prior to the issuance of Ext.P17 NOC granted earlier to the
erstwhile owner of the property, and the said sketch and site plan
were accepted and signed by respondents 2 and 5, and were counter
signed by the Tahsildar. On the basis of the same, the petitioner
submits that there is no dispute with respect to the title and
possession over the subject property and the claim now raised by the
respondents is without any basis. Based on the above said
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -11-
2026:KER:32953
contentions raised, the petitioner submitted an application for the
issuance of an advocate commission. Taking note of the conflicting
stand taken by the revenue authorities on various occassions,
wherein in the earlier report it is stated that there is no puramboke
land and NOC was granted to the erstwhile owners, this Court
directed a fresh survey to be conducted in the subject property
based on the field measurement book produced as Ext.P39 in WP(C)
No.21897 of 2022 by the Head Surveyor attached to the 3rd
respondent with notice to the petitioner as well as the affected
parties, and an Advocate Commission was also appointed to oversee
the survey to be conducted. Based on the said order, a survey was
conducted, and the sketch prepared by the surveyor is produced as
Annexure C1 S dated 15.12.2025, wherein encroachments were
found on the Government land. But a perusal of Ext.R1(s) reveals
that the said sketch has been prepared with a caveat that there is a
difference in shape when compared to the litho plan, when the plan
is sketched with the available measurement. Based on this, the
Advocate Commission observed that the sketch now prepared by the
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -12-
2026:KER:32953
Head Surveyor is not complete, and the same cannot be accepted.
The Advocate Commission recommended that since the survey sub
division and survey measurement of the property are incomplete, it
should be rectified based on ground measurement, invoking the
power under Rule 55 and 58 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries
Rules, 1964.
6. A detailed objection has also been filed by the respondent,
objecting to the report submitted by the Advocate Commission.
7. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.
8. It is an admitted case that the property was purchased in
2020, and land tax was accepted as per Ext.P2 for the total 2.41 ares
of land, which is also supported by Ext.P3 possession certificate and
Ext.P4 location sketch. Tandaper register produced as Ext.P21 also
reveals the erstwhile owner from whom the petitioner purchased
Ext.P1 property had 2.41 ares of land in the particular tandaper
number bearing number 10963. The issue regarding possession of
puramboke land is in respect of property is comprised in Sy.No.46/1
of Moothukunnam Village, having an extent of 1.37 ares of land
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -13-
2026:KER:32953
which is also reflected in Ext.P21 Tandaper account bearing number
10963. It is also to be seen that in respect of Ext.P5 application
submitted by the petitioner, Ext.P7 report was filed by the 3rd
respondent after a detailed enquiry stating that there is no
‘puramboke’ in the said property. Unsatisfied with Ext.P7, further
enquiry was ordered, to which Ext.P9 report was filed, wherein also it
is reported that no ‘puramboke’ included in that property and the
property under enquiry appeared to be a garden land. It is also a fact
that a No Objection Certificate was earlier issued in respect of the
said property in favour of the prior owners as evident from Ext.P17,
and later on Ext.P18 possession certificate was also issued, which
reveals that the subject property was in possession of the erstwhile
owners from whom the petitioner purchased his property as per
Ext.P1.
9. It is also to be noted that Exts.P10 and P11 are the prior sale
deeds of the property which was purchased by the petitioner. Ext.P11
deed is one executed by the Managing Trustee of Jan Muhammed
Haji Essa Seit, a Wakf, who sold its property as per the permission
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -14-
2026:KER:32953
granted by the Kerala Wakf Board. Ext.P35 is a letter given by the
Wakf Board dated 14.06.1982 granting permission to sell 38.60 acres
of garden land, including the property in Sy.No.46/1, which is now
claimed to be ‘puramboke’ land. Based on the same, Ext.P36 is an
information given as per the provisions of the Right to Information
Act, by the Information Officer of the Kerala Wakf Board, which also
proves that 13 cents of property comprised in Sy.No.46/1 is a Wakf
property and included in the Wakf register. Ext.P37 is the Wakf
register, wherein the property of Jan Muhammed Haji Essa Seit Trust
is included as a Wakf property. Ext.P38 is a petition dated 12.02.1982
submitted by Jan Muhammed Haji Essa Seit Trust seeking sanction
for the sale of 38.60 acres of Government land, in which 1.42 acres
of land comprised in Sy.No.46/1 is also intended to be sold. So based
on the same, it is the case of the petitioner that his property was part
of the Wakf property and it was recognised as part of the Wakf
property as early as in 1982. Therefore, I find a considerable force in
the contention of the petitioner that his title and possession of the
property trace back to even 1982 and has come to the hands of the
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -15-
2026:KER:32953
petitioner by way of subsequent sale etc. which happened with the
consent of the Kerala Wakf Board and that the ownership and
possession of the property is established even from 1982 cannot be
now interfered by issuance of a proceedings under the Land
Conservancy Act. Further, it is to be noted that Exts.P7 and P9 report
by the official respondents themselves will reveal that the subject
property does not have any piece of puramboke land included.
Further, the NOC has already been granted to the prior owners as
Ext.P17 in respect of the very same property on finding that the
property is in absolute title and possession of the erstwhile property
owners. Even in the sketch prepared by the Taluk Surveyor based on
the interim order passed by this Court is also not conclusive since the
sketch has been prepared with a caveat that there is a difference in
shape compared to the lithoplan and when the plan is sketched with
the available measurement.
10. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to
my notice the judgment dated 01.07.2025 in WA No.252 of 2016 and
connected cases, wherein the lands were acquired for the purpose of
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -16-
2026:KER:32953
the Kerala State Electricity Board, but compensation amount was not
paid taking a stand that the pattas issued in their favour was not
issued after complying with the statutory formalities and the pattas
issued were bogus pattas, and thereupon cancelled the pattas. The
learned Single Judge found that the cancellation of pattas without
affording the writ petitioner an opportunity of being heard is illegal
and therefore set aside the order cancelling the patta, and disposed
of the writ petition with various directions, including liberty granted
to the respondent to take fresh proceedings for cancellation of patta
after following the statutory procedures. The same was appealed
against by the KSEB as well as the party respondents. The Division
Bench of this Court in the said judgment held that since no action has
been taken by the State for almost 30 to 40 years after the date of
issuance of patta and State has accepted tax in respect of the land
they are estopped from contending that they have no knowledge of
the alleged act during the years and the writ petitioner would be
entitled under law to defend any action by the State towards
dispossessing them on the plea of adverse possession, and disposed
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -17-
2026:KER:32953
of the appeal upholding the directions issued by the learned Single
Judge and setting aside direction No.6 permitting the authorities to
take fresh steps for cancellation of patta holding that this Court has
held in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. (M/s) and Another v. State of
Kerala and Others [2018 (2) KHC 719] that in such circumstance
the attempt of resumption of land owned by a company by invoking
the power under Kerala Land Conservancy Act cannot be permitted
and therefore the same was interfered with and the Court directed
that if the Government is of the view that the company is in
possession of the Government land, it is for the Government to
establish the same before a competent Civil Court. Relevant
paragraphs of the said judgment read as follows:-
“8. The statutory provisions may first be noticed. Rule 8 of the
Rules reads as follows:
“8. Conditions of assignment on registry.– [(1)
Lands, granted on registry shall be heritable but alienable
for a period of twenty-five years from the date of registry:
Provided that the assignee may mortgage such lands,-
(a) to the Government or Co-operative Institutions or Tea Board
or the Rubber Board or any other financial institutions
recognised by the Government in this behalf, as security for
obtaining loan for agricultural or land improvement
purposes or for growing tea or rubber; and
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -18-2026:KER:32953
(b) to the Government or Co-operative Institutions as security
for obtaining loans for house construction under the
Village Housing Project Scheme or any other housing
schemes sponsored by the Government, if such house is
required for the occupation of the assignee or his family.
(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) In
the land assigned on registry as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 7
shall be heritable and alienable.
(2) The assignee or a member of his family or his
successor-ininterest shall reside in the land if it is granted
as house site, or shall personally cultivate the same if it is
granted for cultivation; and such resides or cultivation, as
the case maybe, shall commence effectively within a
period of one year, from the date of receipt of the patta or
of the provisional patta in cases where a provisional patta
is issued in the first instance:
Provided that-
(i) In the cases of assignment to military personnel or their
dependents as the case may be, the assignee may
cultivate the land by his own labourer by the labour of any
member of his family and with the occasional assistants, if
any of hired labour or servants on wages payable in cash
or in kind but not in crop share;
(ii) the military personnel may apply for land anywhere in
the State irrespective of the State to which they belong;
and in the matter of assignment preference shall be given
to persons belong to Kerala;
(iii) the military personal may lease for cultivation purposes
the lands assigned to them whilst they are away on active
service.
(3) The registry shall be liable to be cancelled for
contravention of the provisions in sub-rule (1) or sub-rule
(2). The registry may be cancelled also, if it found that it
was grossly inequitable or was made under a mistake of
facts or owing to misrepresentation of facts or in excess of
the limits of the powers delegated to the assigning
authority or that there was an irregularity in the procedure.
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -19-
2026:KER:32953
In the event of cancellation of the registry, the assignee
shall not be entitled to compensation for any
improvements he may have made on the land. The
authority competent to order such cancellation shall be the
authority which granted the registry, or one superior to it;
Provided the no registry of land shall be cancelled without
giving the party or parties affected thereby, a reasonable
opportunity of being heard:
Provided further that no assignment of Land shall be
cancelled if the annual family income of the transferee
occupant does not exceed Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten thousand
only) and who does not own or possess any landed
property, anywhere in the State:
Provided also that in the case of a transfer of Land covered
by the above proviso the assignee shall not be eligible for
further assignment of Land anywhere in the State.”
It is apparent from a perusal of the Rules that although theRule does not specify a period of limitation for exercising the
power for cancellation of the Patta that is already issued, the
power must be exercised within a reasonable time. As regards
what that reasonable time is, we must look to the other
provisions of the Act for guidance. Viewed thus, we find that
Rule 8(1) mentions a period of 25 years for non-alienation of
lands and simultaneously provides for a power to resume the
assigned lands if there is a breach of any of the conditions
governing the original assignment. It is through the same
provision that the power to resume lands on discovery of a
mistake/fraud etc. is conferred. We would think therefore that
the statutory provision itself indicates that the monitoring
period for the Patta is only 25 years and that if any action, for
cancellation of the Patta for breach of the conditions under
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -20-2026:KER:32953
which it was granted, is taken, it has to be taken within that
time. In the instant case, no such action was taken by the
State for almost 30/40 years from the date of issuance of the
Patta. That apart, the conduct of the State in accepting tax in
respect of the lands covered by the Pattas would effectively
estop it from contending that it had no knowledge of the
alleged fraudulent acts during all these years. In fact, after the
expiry of 30 years, the writ petitioners would also be entitled
under law, to defend any action by the State towards
dispossessing them on the plea of adverse possession.
9. It would be useful in this connection to notice the judgment
of a Division Bench of this Court in Harrisons Malayalam
Ltd. (M/s.) and Another v. State of Kerals and Others –
[2018 (2) KHC 719] where an attempt at resumption of lands
owned by a company, by invoking the provisions of the Kerala
Land Conservancy Act, was thwarted by this Court. While
examining the scope and extent of the power of resumption
under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, this Court found as
follows at paragraphs 125, 126 and 127:
“125.The sine qua non for initiating a proceeding for
eviction of an occupant from a land, under the KLC
Act, is that the land should be either Government land
or puramboke. This is the fundamental, foundational
or jurisdictional fact which must exist for proceeding
under the Act. But that is not to say that the
authorised officer under the KLC Act can decide the
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -21-2026:KER:32953
title or assert title, where there can be none found,
other than by adducing evidence before a proper
forum in a validly instituted proceeding. Especially
when, based on registered documents, payment of
tax, established occupation and unhindered
possession, the occupant raises a bonafide claim of
title supported by various documents produced before
the SO. If it were otherwise, there need not have been
a saving of the civil courts powers in the context of a
dispute raised on the ownership claimed by the
Government. The decisions of the Supreme Court and
this Court placed reliance on by both sides have to be
examined in this context.
126. Thummala Krishna Rao, 1982 KHC 422 : 1982 (2)
SCC 134 : AIR 1982 SC 1081 was concerned with
three items (groups) of property, alleged to have been
acquired by the Government of the Nizam of
Hyderabad for the benefit of Osmania University,
along with larger extents of lands. The University
instituted a suit which was rejected, finding the
plaintiff having failed to prove possession within 12
years before the filing of the suit. Later, at the
instance of the University the Thahsildar took steps
for summary eviction under the Andhra Pradesh Land
Encroachment Act, 1905. The resultant order of
eviction passed, after being unsuccessfully challenged
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -22-2026:KER:32953
before the statutory authorities was before the High
Court. The learned Single Judge held that the
questions, whether the lands were acquired by the
Government and had then been transferred to the
University were not questions which could be properly
decided under Article 226. The Division Bench, in
appeal, held that summary proceedings under the
Encroachment Act cannot be resorted to, on the facts.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court accepted, with approval,
the finding of the Division Bench that the summary
remedy provided by S.7, cannot be availed of in cases
where complicated questions of title arise for decision
“unless there is an attempted encroachment or
encroachment of very recent origin”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
127. It was so held in Para 8 & 9 of the cited decision:
“8. It seems to us clear from these provisions that the
summary remedy for eviction which is provided for by
Section 6 of the Act can be resorted to by the
Government only against persons who are in
unauthorised occupation of any land which is “the
property of the Government”. In regard to property
described in sub-sections (1) and (2) of S.2, there can
be no doubt, difficulty or dispute as to the title of the
Government and, therefore, in respect of such
property, the Government would be free to take
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -23-2026:KER:32953
recourse to the summary remedy of eviction provided
for in S.6. A person who occupies a part of a public
road, street, bridge, the bed of the sea and the like, is
in unauthorised occupation of property which is
declared by Section 2 to be the property of the
Government and, therefore, it is in public interest to
evict him expeditiously, which can only be done by
resorting to the summary remedy provided by the Act.
But Section 6(1) which confers the power of summary
eviction on the Government limits that power to cases
in which a person is in unauthorised occupation of a
land “for which he is liable to pay assessment under
S.3“. S.3, in turn, refers to unauthorised occupation of
any land “which is the property of the Government”. If
there is a bona fide dispute regarding the title of the
Government to any property, the Government cannot
take a unilateral decision in its own favour that the
property belongs to it, and on the basis of such
decision take recourse to the summary remedy
provided by S.6 for evicting the person who is in
possession of the property under a bona fide claim or
title. In the instant case, there is unquestionably a
genuine dispute between the State Government and
the respondents as to whether the three plots of land
were the subject-matter of acquisition proceedings
taken by the then Government of Hyderabad and
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -24-2026:KER:32953
whether the Osmania University, for whose benefit
the plots are alleged to have been acquired, had lost
title to the property by operation of the law of
limitation. The suit filed by the University was
dismissed on the ground of limitation, inter alia, since
Nawab Habibuddin was found to have encroached on
the property more than 12 years before the date of
the suit and the University was not in possession of
the property at any time within that period. Having
failed in the suit, the University activated the
Government to evict the Nawab and his transferees
summarily, which seems to us impermissible. The
respondents have a bona fide claim to litigate and
they cannot be evicted save by the due process of
law. The summary remedy prescribed by Section 6 is
not the kind of legal process which is suited to an
adjudication of complicated questions of title. That
procedure is, therefore, not the due process of law for
evicting the respondents.
9. The view of the Division Bench that the summary
remedy provided for by Section 6 cannot be resorted
to unless the alleged encroachment is of “a very
recent origin”, cannot be stretched too far. That was
also the view taken by the learned Single Judge
himself in another case which is reported in
Meharunnissa Begum v. State of A.P. which was
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -25-2026:KER:32953
affirmed by a Division Bench. It is not the duration,
short or long, of encroachment that is conclusive of
the question whether the summary remedy prescribed
by the Act can be put into operation for evicting a
person. What is relevant for the decision of that
question is more the nature of the property on which
the encroachment is alleged to have been committed
and the consideration whether the claim of the
occupant is bona fide. Facts which raise a bona fide
dispute of title between the Government and the
occupant must be adjudicated upon by the ordinary
courts of law. The Government cannot decide such
questions unilaterally in its own favour and evict any
person summarily on the basis of such decision. But
duration of occupation is relevant in the sense that a
person who is in occupation of a property openly for
an appreciable length of time can be taken, prima
facie, to have a bona fide claim to the property
requiring an impartial adjudication according to the
established procedure of law”. Ss.2,6 & 7 of the A.P
Encroachment Act are in pari materia with S.3, 11 &
12 of the KLC Act and what is declared in Thummala
Krishna Rao, 1982 KHC 44 : 1982 (2) SCC 134 : AIR
1982 SC 1081 applies squarely to the KLC Act and the
proceedings impugned here.”
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -26-
2026:KER:32953
The Court quoted with approval the following statement of law
by Lord Esher M.R. in The Queen v. Commissioner, 1888
(21) Q.B.D. 313:
“When an inferior Court or tribunal or body, which has
to exercise the power of deciding facts, is first
established by Act of Parliament, the legislature has to
consider what powers it will give that tribunal or body.
It may in effect say that, if a certain state of facts
exists and is shown to such tribunal or body before it
proceeds to do certain things, it shall have jurisdiction
to do such things, but not otherwise. There it is not for
them conclusively to decide whether that state of
facts exists, and, if they exercise the jurisdiction
without its existence, what they do may be
questioned, and it will be held that they have acted
without jurisdiction. But there is another state of
things which may exist. The legislature may intrust
the tribunal or body with a jurisdiction, which includes
the jurisdiction to determine whether the preliminary
state of facts exists as well as the jurisdiction, on
finding that it does exist, to proceed further or do
something more. When the legislature are
establishing such a tribunal or body with limited
jurisdiction, they also have to consider, whatever
jurisdiction they give them, whether there shall be
any appeal from their decision for otherwise there will
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -27-2026:KER:32953
be none. In the second of the two cases I have
mentioned it is an erroneous application of the
formula to say that the tribunal cannot give
themselves jurisdiction by wrongly deciding certain
facts to exist, because the legislature gave them
jurisdiction to determine all the facts, including the
existence of the preliminary facts on which the further
exercise of their jurisdiction depends; and if they were
given jurisdiction so to decide, without any appeal
being given; there is no appeal from such exercise of
their jurisdiction.”
10. The SLP preferred by the State against the said judgment
was dismissed and hence, the said judgment has attained
finality. To us, the observations extracted above would
squarely apply to the facts of the instant cases to refrain the
State from invoking the provisions of Rule 8(3) of the Rules to
cancel the Pattas covering the lands acquired from the writ
petitioners.”
11. Similar view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in
WA No.2227 of 2019 which was disposed of on 17.07.2025. It was a
case challenging the proceedings initiated under the Kerala Land
Conservancy Rules for eviction of encroachment, wherein also this
Court finding that the property is in possession of the petitioners for
almost three decades and no steps have been taken for resumption
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -28-
2026:KER:32953
of the land held that the summary power of resumption of land
allegedly under the unauthorised occupation of the writ petitioners
therein cannot be exercised after a considerable length of time
without the Government first establishing before the Civil Court the
jurisdictional fact of the land in question being a Government land for
the purpose of the Act and Rules and held that the writ petitioners
therein would also be entitled under law to defend any action of the
State towards dispossessing them on the plea of adverse possession.
Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as follows:-
“10. The bona fide dispute referred to above can be inferred in
many ways. For instance, the persons in actual possession of
the land may admit that the land in question is Government
land but contend that they have been in possession pursuant
to a valid permission for possession, as was the case in
Banerjee Memorial Club (supra) and Shahul Hassan
Musaliyar (supra). On the other hand, the person in actual
possession could claim that he had a valid title over the
property and that his actual possession merged with legal
possession, as in the case of Harrisons Malayalam Ltd.
(M/s.) and Another v. State of Kerala and Others – [2018
(2) KHC 719]. It is only in the absence of any material on
record that provides a justification for the occupation of the
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -29-2026:KER:32953
land in question that the Government can exercise its power of
resumption in terms of the Act and Rules. This aspect was
reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in Balanoor
Plantations & Industries Ltd. and Another v. State of
Kerala and Others – [2018 KHC 481].
11. On the facts of the instant cases, we find that while the writ
petitioners, who were in actual possession of their lands,
claimed to be in possession of Government land consequent to
a permission granted to them, as evidenced by the “punja
chits” issued for cultivation of the lands, or by virtue of fixity of
tenure obtained under Land Reforms Legislation that was in
force during the relevant time, their continued possession of
the lands after the coming into force of the States
Reorganisation Act in 1956, and the abolition of the
concessions/privileges granted prior thereto as contended by
the learned senior Government Pleader, clothed them with
certain rights, depending on the duration of their possession
over such lands. It is also an admitted position that no
proceedings for resumption of land were taken against the writ
petitioners for over three decades. Under such circumstances,
we cannot, but agree with the findings of the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C).No.731 of 2019 [the judgment impugned in
W.A.No.2227 of 2019] that the nature of the rights accruing to
the writ petitioners had to be examined by a Civil Court before
permitting the State to unilaterally exercise its powers of
resumption under the Act and Rules. As a matter of fact, we
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -30-2026:KER:32953
would think that after expiry of thirty years, the writ petitioners
would also be entitled under law to defend any action by the
State towards dispossessing them, on the plea of adverse
possession.
12. In this context, we might also refer to our own judgment
dated 01.07.2025 in W.A.No.252 of 2016 and connected cases,
where, in the context of the exercise of a summary power for
cancellation of the registry under Rule 8(3) of the Kerala Land
Assignment Rules, we found as follows:
“It is apparent from a perusal of the Rules that although
the Rule does not specify a period of limitation for
exercising the power for cancellation of the Patta that is
already issued, the power must be exercised within a
reasonable time. As regards what that reasonable time is,
we must look to the other provisions of the Act for
guidance. Viewed thus, we find that Rule 8(1) mentions a
period of 25 years for non-alienation of lands and
simultaneously provides for a power to resume the
assigned lands if there is a breach of any of the
conditions governing the original assignment. It is
through the same provision that the power to resume
lands on discovery of a mistake/fraud etc. is conferred.
We would think therefore that the statutory provision
itself indicates that the monitoring period for the Patta is
only 25 years and that if any action, for cancellation of
the Patta for breach of the conditions under which it was
granted, is taken, it has to be taken within that time. In
the instant case, no such action was taken by the State
for almost 30/40 years from the date of issuance of the
Patta. That apart, the conduct of the State in accepting
tax in respect of the lands covered by the Pattas would
effectively estop it from contending that it had no
knowledge of the alleged fraudulent acts during all these
years.”
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -31-
2026:KER:32953
13. The upshot of the above discussion, therefore, is that we do
not deem it necessary to interfere with those findings of the
learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned in W.A.No.2227
of 2019, to the extent impugned therein. We are of the view
that the summary power for resumption of lands, allegedly
under the unauthorized occupation of the writ petitioners in
these cases, cannot be exercised after a considerable length of
time [in these cases over thirty years] without the Government
first establishing before a Civil Court, the jurisdictional fact of
the lands in question being Government lands for the purposes
of the Act and Rules.
We therefore dismiss W.A.No.2227 of 2019, close W.A.No.1435
of 2020 based on the submission of the learned senior
Government Pleader that the proposal for acquisition of the
land for a Medical College has since been dropped, and allow
W.P.(C).No.19498 of 2018 by quashing Ext.P14 order impugned
therein and maintaining the directions of the learned Single
Judge in the judgment in W.P.(C).No.731 of 2019 with regard to
the necessity of the State proving its title over the property in
question in proceedings initiated before the Civil Court of
competent jurisdiction. In the light of our findings above, we
also direct the State Government to forthwith, and at any rate,
within a month from today, restore possession of the properties
resumed from the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.731 of 2019.”
12. It is also worthwhile to refer to the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in WA No.148 of 2019, which was a case where
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -32-
2026:KER:32953
the property came into possession of the writ petitioner after a series
of transfers and in the resurvey it was found that certain extent of
land is thodu puramboke, and the District Collector held that in view
of the above facts it is not possible to assign the thodu puramboke of
the Government or change the type or character of the land. The
said stand was challenged before the learned Single Judge and the
learned Single Judge took a stand that there is no illegality or
complexity on the part of the petitioner in issuance of patta and
since the patta was of the year 1977 and no objection has been
raised from any quarter to set aside the order of the District Collector
rejecting the claim of the petitioner for assignment of the land and
directed the District Collector to record changes of nature of land in
the Revenue records. An appeal was preferred against the same. The
Division Bench of this Court held that since the patta is of the year
1977 and land was in possession of the writ petitioner and his
predecessor in interest for last so many years without any objection
from any corner, to question the correctness of patta at this distance
of time is not only legally sustainable but is also highly inequitable so
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -33-
2026:KER:32953
far as the patta holder is concerned. Accordingly, the Division Bench
declined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single
Judge. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as follows:-
“6. On the above contention, what is required to be observed
is that the Ext.P1 patta was issued in the year 1977 and the
land in question was in possession of the writ petitioner and
his predecessor in interest, for the last so many years, without
any objection from any quarter. To question the correctness of
the patta at this distance of time apart from being legally
unsustainable, would also be highly inequitable, so far as the
patta holder is concerned.”
13. In the present case also, property is stated to be in
possession of the erstwhile owners, including the trust registered
under the Wakf, which at least relates back to 1982. Further Exts.P7
and P9 reports of the revenue authorities, which itself will reveal that
there is no puramboke land included in the subject property, and
further that in respect of the very same land for the previous owners,
Ext.P17 No Objection Certificate has already been issued. In the light
of the above, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to
succeed. Ext.P25 notice impugned in WP(C) No.21897 of 2022 is set
aside. Likewise, Ext.P34 order impugned in WP(C) No.13004 of 2023
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -34-
2026:KER:32953
is also set aside with a consequential direction to the 1st respondent
to consider Ext.P5 application and grant No Objection Certificate in
respect of the property. It is made clear that if the Government has a
case that any portion of the Government land is in unauthorised
possession of the petitioner, it is for the Government to establish the
same before a competent Civil Court, wherein the petitioner would be
entitled to raise all pleas, including the plea of adverse possession.
Another aspect to be noted is that the request for issuance of NOC
was earlier declined as per Ext.P16 and subsequently by Ext.P34 in
W.P.(C)No.13004 of 2023. Ext.P16 as well as Ext.P34 order refers to a
complaint filed by one Appukuttan, Kalathil Veedu, regarding the
establishment of the storage tank, which is just 4 metres away from
his house. A perusal of Ext.P16 indicates that since the proposed
petrol pump is very close to the river, necessary clearance from the
CRZ authority and the town planner has to be obtained. In the light of
the above facts and circumstances, it is made clear that, this Court
has considered only the objection raised by respondents that a No
Objection Certificate cannot be granted for the reason that a portion
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -35-
2026:KER:32953
of the property is a puramboke land. All other objections as
discernible from Exts.P16 and P34 are left open. An appropriate
decision could be made by the authorities while issuing the No
Objection Certificate in respect of the subject property.
The writ petitions are disposed of as above of.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sbk/-
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -36-
2026:KER:32953
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 21897 OF 2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1992/2020
DATED 25.9.2020 OF THE PARAVOOR SRO.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
8.4.2022.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 11.1.2021.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH NO.
21/2020.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
25.11.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR
NOC.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.3.2021
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 26.7.2021
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.8.2021
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 28.9.2021
SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 1563/1994 DATED
21.2.1994 OF THE PARAVOOR SRO.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 2885/2003 DATED
30.5.2003 OF THE PARAVOOR SRO.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JETTY LICENSE BEARING
NO.850/2020 DATED 11.11.2020
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN.
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 22.11.2021
WITH THE SKETCH ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.12.2021
IN W P ©NO. 26379/2021.
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.DC
EKM/131/2021 - M4, DATED 5.1.2022.
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE NOC BEARING NO. D DIS.
38352/11/M4 DATED 14.6.2013 WITH ITS
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
BEARING NO. K. DIS-9096/D2/2010 DATED
12.10.2010.
Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTAYAM NO. PF 53/1994
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -37-
2026:KER:32953
DATED 21.1.1994.
Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER ACCOUNT DATED
7.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER REGISTER OF THE
PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE PARTICULARS OF
THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT.P1 AVAILABLE
IN THE WEB SITE OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT.
Exhibit P23 TRUE COPY OF THE PURAMBOKE LAND
PARTICULARS AVAILABLE IN THE WEB SITE
PERTAINING TO THE MOOTHAKUNNAM VILLAGE.
Exhibit P24 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W P (C) NO.
2735/2022 DATED 13.4.2022.
Exhibit P25 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO.LC/ D5
-1336 /2022 DATED 20.6.2022 ISSUED BY THE
6TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P26 TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO. 1/134147/2022
IN DCEKM/131/2021-M4 DATED 14-6-2022.
Exhibit P27 TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.1/134147/2022 IN
DCEKM/131/2021-M4 DATED 14-6-2022 RECEIVED
BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT ON 18-6-2022.
Exhibit P28 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.D5-
1136/2022 DATED 15-6-2022 ISSUED BY THE
6TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P29 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 6TH
RESPONDENT BEARING NO.D5-1136/2022 DATED
13-7-2022.
Exhibit P30 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 9-6-2022.
Exhibit P31 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BEARING NO.DCEKM/131/2021-M4,
DATED 21/07/2022.
Exhibit P32 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ALONG WITH FORM C
UNDER THE LAND CONSERVANCY ACT 1957
BEARING NO. D5- 1136/2022 DATED 14.7.2022.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE TAHSILDAR (LR)
NORTH PARAVOOR DATED 16.06.2022.
EXHIBIT R6(b) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SIGNED BY SHIJU
VARGHESE DATED 05.07.2022.
EXHIBIT – R6(c) The true copy of the report bearing No.D1-
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -38-
2026:KER:32953
1136/2022 dated 01.10.2024 submitted by
the Taluk Surveyor
EXHIBIT – R6(d) The copy of hte Sketch dated 01.10.2024
prepared by the Taluk Surveyor
EXHIBIT – R6(e) The copy of the relevant page of the Basic
Tax Register pertaining to Survey No.46/1
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Ext.P34 True copy of letter dated 28.10.2024 of
State Public Information Officer
Ext.P35 True copy of Kerala Gazette dated
08.12.1964 showing list of wakfs in the
Ernakulam area
Ext.P36 True copyof petition dated 12.02.1982
submitted by Jan Mohamed Haji Essa Trust
seeking sanction for sale of 38.60 acres
of garden land
Ext.P37 True copy of site plan with respect to
Ext.P17 NOC
Ext.P38 True copy of report and sketch dated
08.05.2024 submitted by 4th respondent
Ext.P39 True copy of the Field Measurement Book
(FMB) of the 13th Khandam, Vadakkekara,
Paravur Taluk
Ext.P40 True copy of FMB sketch of 10th Khandam,
Vadakkekara, Paravur Taluk
Ext.P33 True copy of letter dated 14.06.1982 of
Secretary, Kerala Wakf Board along with
written sanction (with typed copy of page
no.3)
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE C1[h] True copy of the sketch
ANNEXURE C1[i] True copy of the sketch
ANNEXURE C1[j] True copy of the sketch
ANNEXURE C1[k] True copy of the sketch
ANNEXURE C1[l] True copy of the sketch
ANNEXURE C1[m] True copy of the sketch
ANNEXURE C1[o] True copy of the sketch
ANNEXURE C1[p] True copy of the sketch
ANNEXURE C1[n] True copy of the sketch
ANNEXURE C1[a] The Original of the notice given to the
petitioner
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -39-
2026:KER:32953
ANNEXURE C1[b] The printout of the whatsapp message sent
to the 3rd respondent
ANNEXURE C1[c] True copy of the The satellite image of
the property taken from google maps
ANNEXURE C1[d] True copy of the The satellite image of
the property taken from google maps
ANNEXURE C1[e] True copy of the The satellite image of
the property taken from google maps
ANNEXURE C1[f] True copy of the image of the property
from ISRO Bhuvan
ANNEXURE C1[g] The photographs of the property taken by
me on the location
ANNEXURE c1[s] True copy of the Survey plan of the head
Surveyor dated.15.12.2025
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -40-
2026:KER:32953
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 13004 OF 2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1992/2020
DATED 25.9.2020
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
8.4.2022
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 11.1.2021
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH NO.
21/2020
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER DATED 25.11.2020
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 31.3.2021
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 26.7.2021
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 18.8.2021
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
5TH RESPONDENT DATED 28.9.2021
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1563/1994
DATED 21.2.1994
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2885/2003
DATED 30.5.2003
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JETTY LICENSE ISSUED BY
THE PORT CONSERVATOR, BEARING NO.850/2020
DATED 11.11.2020
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT WITH THE SKETCH
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED
22.11.2021
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.
26379/2021 DATED 3.12.2021
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.
DCEKM/131/2021-M4, DATED 5.1.2022
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE NOC BEARING NO. D DIS.
38352/11/M4 WITH ITS PROCEEDINGS OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.6.2013
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
BEARING NO. K. DIS-9096/D2/2010 DATED
12.10.2010
Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTAYAM NO. PF 53/1994
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -41-
2026:KER:32953
DATED 21.1.1994
Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER ACCOUNT ISSUED
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 7.12.2021
Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY THANDAPER REGISTER ISSUED BY THE
5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE PARTICULARS
COVERED BY EXT.P1, AVAILABLE IN THE
WEBSITE OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT
Exhibit P23 TRUE COPY OF THE PURAMBOKE LAND
PARTICULARS, AVAILABLE IN THE WEBSITE
PERTAINING TO THE MOOTHAKUNNAM VILLAGE
Exhibit P24 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.
2735/2022 DATED 13.4.2022
Exhibit P25 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO.LC/ D5
-1336 /2022 DATED 20.6.2022
Exhibit P26 TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO. 1/134147/2022
IN DCEKM/131/2021-M4 DATED 14.6.2022
Exhibit P27 TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND DIRECTION ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING
NO.1/134147/2022 IN DCEKM/131/2021-M4
DATED 14.6.2022 AND RECEIVED BY THE 6TH
RESPONDENT ON 18.6.2022
Exhibit P28 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.D5-
1136/2022 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
DATED 15.6.2022
Exhibit P29 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ALONG WITH FORM C
UNDER THE LAND CONSERVANCY ACT 1957
BEARING NO. D5-1136/2022 DATED 14.7.2022
Exhibit P30 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO. D5-
1136/2022 DATED 13.7.2022
Exhibit P31 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P.(C)
NO.21897/2022 DATED 29.7.2022
Exhibit P32 TRUE COPY OF ARGUMENT NOTES DATED
14.6.2022
Exhibit P33 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.
DC EKM /131/2021-M4 DATED 21.7.2022
Exhibit P34 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.11.2022
Exhibit P35 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 14-06-1982 OF
THE SECRETARY, KERALA WAKF BOARD ALONG
WITH WRITTEN SANCTION
Exhibit P36 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 28-10-2024 OF
STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
Exhibit P37 TRUE COPY OF KERALA GAZETTE DATED 08-12-
WP(C) Nos.21897 of 2022 and 13004 of 2023 -42-
2026:KER:32953
1964 SHOWING LIST OF WAKFS IN THE
ERNAKULAM AREA
Exhibit P38 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 12-02-1982
SUBMITTED BY JAN MOHAMED HAJI ESSA TRUST
SEEKING SANCTION FOR SALE OF 38.60 ACRES
OF GARDEN LAND
Exhibit P39 TRUE COPY OF SITE PLAN WITH RESPECT TO
EXT.P17 NOC