Kochi: Kerala High Court has upheld the decision of the state government to cancel the title deed of the land of Club Mahindra resort in Munnar paving the way for the government to take over the land. Rejecting a writ petition filed by Mahindra Holidays and Resorts Ltd against the order of the revenue officials cancelling the patta, the court held that the government action is to protect the interest of the state. The resort is located in Chinnakkanal village in Munnar.
The petitioner challenged the order of the Devikulam sub-collector in 2007 cancelling the patta on the grounds that the land assigned for cultivation has been used for commercial purpose for running a resort. The state land revenue commissioner had also upheld the order of the sub-collector forcing the petitioner to approach the High Court.
Quoting a series of judgments of the Supreme Court based on the principle of public trust doctrine, the single bench stated that "the equitable principles relating to estoppel and waiver cannot have a bearing when the government is acting as a trustee". The court made the remark while rejecting the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the governments have waived their right to proceed against the petitioner by acknowledging the acceptance of basic tax and conferring certificates relating to tourism.
"This action is to protect the interest of the state," the order said. "No wrong can give rise to a right. The land belongs to the state. If the government had failed in its duty to check illegal use of land, that will not give rise to an equitable right to a wrongdoer. The principles of estoppel cannot be advanced to promote one's own wrong," the judgment said.
It also stated that the failure of the officials to safeguard the interest of the public cannot be held against the government.
The petitioner had obtained the land from two persons named Thavamani and Varkey Antony. The two obtained patta from government for 2.61 acres and 2.71 acres, respectively, for cultivation. The patta was given on the condition that the land should not be alienated for the initial period of 10 years. The remaining land under the possession of the petitioner was presumed to be encroached.
The verdict is likely to have a cascading impact if the revenue department makes earnest efforts to reclaim the government land encroached by resorts in the region.
