Encroacher Cannot Seek Shelter Under Patta or Electricity Connection: Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction

“Natural justice cannot be stretched to shield illegal occupation of Government land” – Kerala High Court at Ernakulam delivered a common judgment. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. dismissed all petitions filed by Abdul Razack, who had sought protection against eviction, disconnection of electricity, and quashing of criminal proceedings. The Court held that the petitioner had encroached Government land in Survey No.182 of Manjumala Village and could not camouflage his occupation by relying on old pattas, sale deeds, or claims of cultivation.

The petitioner claimed ownership over 75 cents of land through a patta issued in 1979 and a subsequent sale deed in 1981. He argued that this land was wrongly treated as Government property and that eviction proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 were illegal.

When eviction notices were served in 2020, the petitioner sought adjournments, claiming he needed time to collect documents under the RTI Act. Despite this, the Tahsildar directed him to vacate within 48 hours. He then approached the High Court through multiple writ petitions and also filed a criminal miscellaneous case seeking to quash proceedings under Crime No.892/2020.

The State countered that the land covered by his documents lay in Survey No.441, while his encroachment was in Survey No.182, part of Government grassland and forest land. They argued that he was attempting to mislead the Court by linking unrelated pattas and litigations.

On Confusion Between Survey Numbers

The Court noted the petitioner’s inconsistent claims, sometimes citing Survey No.441, other times Survey No.182:

“In the 1st paragraph of statement of facts… the petitioner pleaded that his property is situated in survey No.144… in the synopsis he pleaded it as survey No.182… however, Exts.P1 and P2 documents would show that the 75 cents of property claimed is situated in survey No.441 of Peerumade village.”

Thus, his claim to Survey No.182 was unsupported.

On Violation of Natural Justice

Rejecting the petitioner’s plea that he was denied fair hearing, the Court held:

“Though the petitioner had submitted request to adjourn the proceedings, he cannot take it as granted and keep himself away from the proceedings. In such circumstances, the Tahsildar’s order cannot be said as passed in violation of natural justice.”

On Encroachment and Public Land

The Bench emphasized that the petitioner’s reliance on pattas and private sale deeds could not justify occupation of Government land:

“We find no ground to interfere with any of the legal proceedings initiated by the authorities concerned, to evict the petitioner from the encroached land and the consequential steps taken in accordance with law.”

The High Court dismissed all three matters:

• W.P.(C) No.22222 of 2020 (challenging eviction orders),

• W.P.(C) No.1998 of 2021 (challenging show-cause notice for electricity disconnection), and

• Crl.M.C No.4426 of 2021 (seeking to quash criminal proceedings for encroachment).

The Court upheld the eviction proceedings and confirmed the legality of further action under the Land Conservancy Act.

The Kerala High Court made it clear that illegal encroachment on Government land cannot be legitimised through pattas, electricity connections, or claims of cultivation.

By dismissing all three petitions, the Court reaffirmed that “encroachers cannot claim constitutional or equitable protection”, and that principles of natural justice cannot be stretched to protect unlawful occupation of State land.

Date of Decision: 19 August 2025