Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court dismissed the State’s appeal challenging a Single Judge’s decision that barred summary eviction of indiwviduals in possession of Government land for over three decades without first establishing title before a Civil Court. The Court upheld that the summary power under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and Rules cannot be exercised after such a long period without proving ownership. The State was directed to restore possession to the petitioners within one month. A connected appeal by the petitioners against the State retaining the land for a proposed Medical College was closed after the Government confirmed the acquisition proposal was dropped. A connected writ petition by a trust was allowed, quashing the Tahsildar’s resumption order.
Facts
The dispute traces back to Form ‘C’ notices issued by the Tahsildar under Rule 11 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules for alleged unauthorised occupation of Government land. In earlier litigation, these notices were quashed, and the Tahsildar was directed to hear objections afresh. A fresh order dated 3 May 2018 again initiated resumption proceedings, prompting writ petitions. The petitioners claimed long-standing possession based on old “punja chits” issued for cultivation and alleged fixity of tenure under pre-States Reorganisation laws. They argued that possession had been continuous for decades without any action from the State, thereby entitling them to defend possession even on adverse possession grounds. The State argued that the lands were Government property and could be resumed under the Land Conservancy framework. The Single Judge rejected the jurisdictional challenge to the Tahsildar but held the State could not summarily evict without proving legal possession.
Issues
- Whether the Tahsildar could exercise powers as “Collector” under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act to order eviction.
- Whether the State could invoke summary resumption powers without establishing legal possession.
- Whether prolonged possession by private parties affects the State’s right to summary eviction.
- Whether the State was bound to follow due process under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 when the land was needed for public purpose.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners contended that their occupation was lawful or at least protected by rights arising from decades-long possession under valid cultivation permissions and tenure laws. They relied on documentary evidence, including revenue records and registered documents, to show their occupation was neither recent nor unlawful. They argued that after more than thirty years of inaction, the State could not invoke summary eviction powers without a civil court decree, and any acquisition must follow the 2013 Act’s procedure for compensation. They also pointed out that possession had been peaceful, taxes were accepted by the Government, and no proceedings were initiated for decades.
Respondents’ Arguments
The State asserted that the lands in question were Government property and that any occupation without title was unauthorised. It defended the Tahsildar’s jurisdiction as “Collector” under the Act based on Government orders. It claimed that even long-standing occupation did not legalise encroachment and that the State retained the right to resume such lands, especially when identified for public purposes like establishing a Medical College. It maintained that possession, however lengthy, could not confer ownership against the State unless proven through adverse possession in court.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and Rules, emphasising the jurisdictional requirement that the land must be Government property before invoking summary eviction. It held that the State cannot unilaterally decide this question when bona fide disputes of title exist. The Court also highlighted that after a considerable lapse of time, the State’s power to resume must be exercised only through civil proceedings, drawing an analogy to the Kerala Land Assignment Rules’ 25-year monitoring period. Acceptance of land tax over decades estopped the State from sudden eviction without judicial adjudication.
Precedent Analysis
- Govt. of A.P. v. Thummala Krishna Rao (1982) 2 SCC 134 — Summary eviction is impermissible when bona fide disputes of title exist; such disputes must be adjudicated in ordinary civil courts.
- Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2014, 2018 KLT) — Distinguished between legal and actual possession; State must prove legal possession before eviction.
- Banerjee Memorial Club v. Taluk Tahsildar (2016 KLT) and Shahul Hassan Musaliyar (2015 KHC) — Long-standing possession with permission or rights must be respected until title is resolved.
- Balanoor Plantations & Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2018 KHC) — State action without proof of title is invalid.
- W.A. No. 252 of 2016 (Ker HC, 2025) — Power to cancel pattas must be exercised within a reasonable period, indicated as 25 years.
Court’s Reasoning
The Bench agreed with the Single Judge that after three decades of unchallenged possession, the State could not invoke summary resumption powers without first proving ownership before a civil court. The delay itself strengthened the petitioners’ defence, even on adverse possession grounds. The State’s acceptance of taxes and absence of timely action further weakened its position. The Court found that the statutory framework implied a limitation on resumption powers after prolonged inaction and that the equitable principle of fairness required judicial determination before eviction.
Conclusion
The appeals by the State were dismissed, the petitioners’ writ petition was allowed, and the impugned resumption order quashed. The State was directed to restore possession within one month. Summary eviction after decades of possession was held impermissible without first proving title in civil court. The closure of the Medical College proposal rendered part of the dispute academic.
Implications
This ruling reinforces that the State cannot rely on summary eviction mechanisms to displace occupants after prolonged inaction without proving ownership through proper legal proceedings. It safeguards long-term possessors from arbitrary eviction and underlines the necessity of civil court adjudication in complex title disputes. It also signals a judicial willingness to treat prolonged possession — especially when taxes are accepted — as requiring stronger procedural safeguards for eviction.
Referred Cases Summary
- Thummala Krishna Rao (1982) — Summary eviction barred where title is disputed; civil court must decide.
- Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. (2014, 2018) — Differentiated legal from actual possession; legal possession must be proved.
- Banerjee Memorial Club (2016) & Shahul Hassan Musaliyar (2015) — Recognised rights of long-term occupants with permission.
- Balanoor Plantations (2018) — Invalidated State action without title proof.
- Ker HC W.A. 252/2016 (2025) — Implied time limit for resumption powers.
FAQs
1. Can the State summarily evict long-term occupants of alleged Government land?
No, not if there is a bona fide dispute over title or if possession has been unchallenged for decades; the State must first prove title in civil court.
2. Does long-term possession protect against eviction?
Yes, prolonged peaceful possession, especially exceeding 30 years with tax payments accepted by the State, strengthens defences like adverse possession and demands judicial adjudication.
3. What happens if the land is needed for public purposes?
The State must follow due process under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, including compensation, unless ownership is undisputed.