Summary eviction under the Land Conservancy Act cannot resolve bona fide title disputes requiring civil adjudication.

The petitioner, claiming to be a devotee of Valiyakulangara Devi Temple, alleged that substantial parcels of land recorded in the Travancore Settlement Register as Devaswom properties were unlawfully held by the Karthikappally Brahmana Samooham, respondents 7 and 8.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court directed the Special Tahsildar to measure and finalise the survey of the disputed properties.

After further proceedings and a joint survey pursuant to subsequent directions of the Court, the Special Tahsildar submitted a report concerning the disputed lands.

The Brahmana Samooham produced Settlement Pattayam No. 12 of 1071 ME/1896, asserting proprietary rights over the land.

The petitioner challenged the Pattayam as forged and contended that the Samooham was only a former lessee of Devaswom property whose lease had expired.

By order dated 27 September 2025, the Special Tahsildar held that proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act could not be initiated because the occupants had produced documents supporting their title and directed the Travancore Devaswom Board to approach the competent civil court.

The petitioner’s review petition was dismissed.

He then challenged the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable because the Special Tahsildar’s order was appealable under Section 16 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and because the dispute involved complicated questions of title, possession, historical revenue records, and the genuineness of the Pattayam.

Whether the writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the statutory appellate remedy under Section 16 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act?

Whether the High Court, in proceedings under Article 226, could adjudicate the rival claims of the Devaswom and the Brahmana Samooham concerning title and possession of the disputed immovable properties?

Whether the Kerala Land Conservancy Act could be invoked, through Section 27 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, to evict an occupant claiming longstanding possession and title under a Settlement Pattayam?

Whether the Special Tahsildar’s order declining to initiate proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and directing the Travancore Devaswom Board to seek relief before a civil court was illegal or otherwise liable to be quashed?

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, holding that although the power is wide, the High Court ordinarily declines writ jurisdiction where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy exists, particularly where the petitioner has not shown violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or any other recognised exception; this principle was drawn from Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P., (2021) 6 SCC 771.

Section 15 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act governs proceedings concerning unauthorised occupation, while an order under that provision is appealable under Section 16.

Section 27 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act extends the Land Conservancy Act to specified Devaswom properties treated as Government land.

However, where occupation is supported by a sale deed, lease deed, purchase certificate, or other governmental title document, it cannot summarily be treated as unauthorised; the Court relied on Shree Kumramputhoor Bhagavathy Devaswom Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi v. Malabar Devaswom Board.

Further, under Government of A.P. v. Thummala Krishna Rao, (1982) 2 SCC 134, and State of Rajasthan v. Padmavati Devi, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 290, a bona fide and complicated dispute regarding title must be resolved by a competent civil court rather than through summary land-encroachment proceedings.

The Court also relied on Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti, and Orissa Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. Bharati Industries for the principle that the High Court may decline writ jurisdiction where disputed facts require detailed evidence.

The Court found that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory appeal under Section 16 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and had not established any exceptional circumstance warranting direct intervention under Article 226.

The Special Tahsildar had provided the parties with notice and an opportunity of hearing, considered the joint survey and documentary material, and recorded that the disputed properties were supported by title documents, including the Settlement Pattayam and purchase certificates.

The competing claims depended upon interpretation of historical Travancore revenue records, the legal effect and authenticity of the 1896 Pattayam, the nature of the original tenure, and the parties’ prolonged possession.

These matters involved disputed questions of fact and title requiring evidence and could not appropriately be determined in writ proceedings.

The Court further held that the Brahmana Samooham had allegedly been in possession since 1896 and was asserting title on the basis of a governmental Settlement Pattayam.

In such circumstances, its possession could not summarily be characterised as unauthorised for purposes of eviction under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act.

Since the dispute was bona fide and involved substantial questions of title, the appropriate remedy was a civil suit rather than summary proceedings under Section 27 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act read with the Kerala Land Conservancy Act.

On the materials before it, the Court found no illegality, arbitrariness, or jurisdictional error in the Special Tahsildar’s order.

It further held that the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and Section 27 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act could not be used to summarily evict the Samooham on the facts presented, particularly in view of its longstanding possession and documentary claim of title.

The challenge to the Special Tahsildar’s order was rejected, and the writ petition was dismissed without granting any relief.