Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court quashed proceedings initiated by revenue authorities for the recovery and resumption of a parcel of land measuring 5.60 Ares, holding that the government could not dispossess a person in settled possession without due process of law. The Court found that the claim of the land being government property was based on vague entries in revenue records without a clear title, and emphasized that possession of private land cannot be interfered with without notice, hearing, or following proper procedure. The judgment upheld the petitioner’s right to protection under Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution.
“Even assuming that the land is puramboke land, the petitioner cannot be evicted except by following the due process of law.”
Facts
The petitioner claimed ownership and possession of 5.60 Ares of property, which he inherited and which was previously in the name of his father as per the Basic Tax Register. The property was described as ‘puramboke parambu’ in revenue records, but tax receipts from as early as 1992 confirmed possession. In 2017, the District Collector directed the Tahsildar to initiate action for recovery of the land under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued an order directing resumption of the land.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order, arguing that the government had no title over the land and that he could not be dispossessed without notice and due procedure.
Issues
- Whether the revenue authorities could resume possession of the land based on revenue entries showing the property as ‘puramboke parambu’.
- Whether the government had established lawful title to the land to justify dispossession.
- Whether the procedure adopted by the authorities was in accordance with law.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that he had valid possession over the land for decades, supported by tax receipts and revenue entries in his father’s name. The description of the property as ‘puramboke parambu’ did not amount to conclusive proof of government ownership. He contended that the proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act were initiated without issuing any show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice and constitutional protections under Article 300-A. He also challenged the power of the Revenue Divisional Officer to unilaterally resume possession without civil court adjudication of title.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued that the land was classified as ‘puramboke parambu’ in revenue records, indicating that it was government land. It relied on a 2017 order by the District Collector to initiate proceedings for its recovery and contended that the government had rightful ownership. It was further submitted that as the land fell under puramboke classification, the authorities had jurisdiction under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act to evict unauthorised occupants without following civil court processes.
Analysis of the Law
The Court referred to the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957, and the relevant revenue entries to assess the nature of the land. It reiterated that mere classification as puramboke does not automatically vest title with the government. The Act empowers authorities to take steps against unauthorised occupation of government land, but it must be proven that the land indeed belongs to the government.
The Court emphasized the constitutional protection under Article 300-A, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, and Article 21 protects the right to life and liberty, which includes the right not to be arbitrarily dispossessed.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied heavily on:
- Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao [(1989) 4 SCC 131], where the Supreme Court held that even a trespasser in settled possession cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law.
- K.K. Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala [(2003) 1 KLT 256], where the Kerala High Court held that revenue records like puramboke entries cannot override possession rights or be treated as conclusive proof of title.
- State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh [(1989) 2 SCC 505], holding that the State must seek eviction through due legal process and not use executive fiat.
- Meghmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy [(2010) 8 SCC 383], which reiterated that possession without title still enjoys constitutional protection from illegal dispossession.
These precedents firmly establish that possession, even if disputed, cannot be disturbed without proper legal adjudication.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioner had been in possession for decades and had produced tax receipts. The respondents failed to produce any document of title in the government’s name. Merely labeling land as ‘puramboke’ was insufficient to displace lawful possession.
The Court observed that the order for resumption was passed without issuing a notice or granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It reiterated that dispossession can only be ordered by a competent authority, through a judicial process, and not by an executive order relying solely on revenue records.
The Court concluded that both the procedure and the substance of the resumption order were flawed.
Conclusion
The High Court quashed the Revenue Divisional Officer’s order for resumption and ruled in favor of the petitioner. It held that the State had not proven its title over the land and that even assuming the land was puramboke, the petitioner could not be evicted without due process. The writ petition was allowed, and the resumption order was set aside.
Implications
This ruling strengthens the property rights of individuals and restricts the powers of revenue authorities from arbitrarily taking over land without proving ownership and following due process. It establishes that possession, even when contested, cannot be disturbed except through lawful means. The judgment is a significant check on administrative overreach and reinforces constitutional safeguards against unlawful dispossession.
Judgments Cited and Their Relevance
- Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao: Affirmed that possession cannot be disturbed without legal process.
- K.K. Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala: Held that puramboke entries are not proof of government title.
- State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh: State must follow legal process for eviction.
- Meghmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy: Emphasized protection of possession even without title.
FAQs
1. Can the government resume possession of private land labeled as puramboke in revenue records?
No. Mere classification as puramboke does not prove ownership. The government must establish title through proper legal channels.
2. Is a person in possession of land entitled to constitutional protection even if there is no title deed?
Yes. Under Article 300-A and Supreme Court rulings, even possession without title is protected from arbitrary eviction.
3. Can the State evict someone under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act without issuing notice?
No. The Act requires due process, including notice and hearing. Failure to follow these makes the eviction illegal.
