Safiya Malik

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice C. Jayachandran has directed the State’s Revenue Secretary to issue orders within two months divesting 5.81575 acres of land from Government ownership and restoring it to the landholder, after finding that the Government had accepted and taken possession of an equal extent offered as substitute land in ceiling proceedings. The Court noted that an order under Section 86 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act makes excess land vest absolutely in the State, but held that, in exceptional situations, it may exercise power under Article 226 to order de-vesting to prevent injustice and protect property rights under Article 300A, where the State’s acceptance of substitution would otherwise deprive the owner of both parcels.

The writ petition concerned land ceiling proceedings initiated under the Kerala Land Reforms Act against the father of the petitioner, who was a declarant before the Taluk Land Board. Orders were passed determining excess land liable for surrender, which were later revised by the Taluk Land Board. Pursuant to the revised order, certain parcels of land were identified as excess and liable to vest with the Government.

Also Read: AP Stamp Act | Agreement To Sell Attracts Stamp Duty Only If Followed By Delivery Of Possession: Supreme Court

Several years later, the petitioner submitted a revised option statement offering an alternate parcel of land in substitution of part of the originally identified land. This re-option was initially not acted upon, leading to earlier writ proceedings. Subsequently, the Government accepted the alternate land and took possession of it through the Village Officer.

The dispute arose when, despite acceptance and possession of the alternate land, the original land continued to remain vested with the Government. The petitioner approached the Court seeking divestment of the substituted portion, contending that retention of both parcels resulted in deprivation of property. The respondents questioned the existence of statutory power for divesting land already vested under the Act.

The Court examined the scheme of Chapter III of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and recorded that “vesting takes place on the determination of the extent and other particulars of lands to be surrendered under Section 85” and that upon such determination “the ownership or possession, or both, as the case may be, of the land shall vest in the Government, free from all encumbrances.”

Referring to the revised order, the Court extracted that “the ownership and possession of the land described… shall… vest in government free from all encumbrances from the date of this Order.” On this basis, the Court stated that “a perusal… would leave no room for any doubt as regards the vesting of the property covered by [the] order with the Government.”

At the same time, the Court recorded that “the alternate proposal… has been accepted, and acted upon by the Government.” It observed that if the substituted land continued to vest with the Government, “the petitioner will be deprived of both the lands, impinging his valuable rights under Article 300A of the Constitution.” The Court further noted that such a situation “amounts to unjust enrichment of the Government.”

While acknowledging that “there is no provision under the K.L.R Act for issuance of an Order divesting a land, which has already been vested with the Government,” the Court stated that “in an extraordinary situation like the instant one… failure [to grant relief] would result in a travesty of justice.”

The Court recorded that it was “inclined to invoke its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution” and directed issuance of orders divesting the land substituted through the accepted re-option. The competent authority “will stand directed to issue necessary orders divesting the Government’s ownership and possession over 5.81575 acres” in the specified survey numbers in favour of the petitioner.

Also Read: Petroleum Storage Licence Auto-Cancels On Lease Expiry, No Hearing Required; Kerala High Court

“The above direction shall be complied within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment,” and noted that the petitioner “will produce a copy of the judgment… for compliance.”

With regard to allegations of encroachment, the Court recorded that “this Court need not make any observation in this regard, and the parties will be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings as per law, insofar as eviction of the trespassers, if any, is concerned.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Sri. M. Krishnakumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Smt. Deepa Narayanan, Senior Government Pleader
Amicus Curiae: Sri. Harikumar G. Nair

Case Title: P.G. Thomas Tharakan v. State Land Board & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: KER:1966
Case Number: WP(C) No. 29003 of 2025
Bench: Justice C. Jayachandran