The petitioner is the owner in possession of 5.5 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No.105/4 of Chengamanadu Grama Panchayat. This writ petition has been filed when the respondents allegedly attempted to take over the land without resorting to the procedures contemplated for land acquisition on the premise that the land in question is a puramboke land. The contention of the petitioner is that in respect of the land in question pattayam was issued as early as in 1976 by the Land Tribunal in the name of his father and subsequently it was transferred to him as per Ext.P2 settlement deed dated 18.5.2013. According to the petitioner, he has been in possession of the property since then and he has been regularly paying the land tax. Earlier, in the year 2010, an Extraordinary Gazette notification was published fixing the fair value and at that time the property was under the ownership of his father. In that notification the land in question was wrongly shown as puramboke. Feeling aggrieved by the same the petitioner's father approached the Tahsildar, Aluva who after a detailed enquiry through Taluk Surveyor issued Ext.P5 and subsequently the said entry was WP(C).No.4031/2014 2 corrected. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the correction effected as per Ext.P5 was never interfered with at any point of time by any higher authorities. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court by filing the captioned writ petition seeking redressal against dispossession. When this matter came up for admission on 10.2.2014 this Court passed an interim order to the effect that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the property comprised in Re-survey No.105/4 of Chengamanadu Grama Panchayat. In fact, time was granted to the respondents to file statement/affidavit. Despite affording such opportunities repeatedly no statement has been placed on record. In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition I do not think it necessary to compel the respondents to file any statement or affidavit. In view of Article 300A of the Constitution of India nobody can be deprived of his property save by authority of law. As long as there is nothing on record to discard the contention of the petitioner that the wrong entry of puramboke in respect of the property was later corrected as per Ext.P5 and now it stands in his name the respondents will have to resort to the procedures contemplated under law for effecting acquisition of the land in case they want to take possession of the property for any public purpose. In the said circumstances, it is made clear that it will be WP(C).No.4031/2014 3 open to the respondents to take appropriate steps if acquisition of the property is for a public purpose. In case the respondents are attempting to acquire the land without resorting to the procedures contemplated under law certainly, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court, in accordance with law. It is also made clear that if there is evidence that the property in question is puramboke it will be ope to the respondents to take steps for its resumption in accordance with law.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS