Rajesh N.N vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 3230 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

      FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 9TH MAGHA, 1942

                       W.P.(C) No.807 OF 2021(A)

PETITIONER:

               RAJESH N.N.,
               AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE NARAYANAN,
               NEDUMANGATTU,
               NARIYAMPARA P.O, KATTAPPANA,
               IDUKKI DISTRICT.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
               SHRI.SUSANTH SHAJI
               SRI.P.J.JOSE

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REPREENTED BY SECRETARY,
               DEPT. OF REVENUE SECRETARIAT,
               TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 001.

      2        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
               IDUKKI DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION,
               KUYILIMALA, PAINAVU,
               IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 603.

      3        THE TAHSILDAR,
               IDUKKI TALUK, TALUK OFFICE,
               VANCHIKKAVALA, CHERUTHONI,
               KERALA-685 602.

      4        THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
               O/O. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
               KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 508.

               SRI.SUNIL NATH N.B., GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.807 OF 2021(A)
                                  -2-


                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is the owner of the property having an

extent of 30 cents comprised in Re.Sy.No.17 (Old Sy.No.1/1) in

Block No.60 of Kattappana Village, which is lying as 'pulmedu', has

filed this writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the

4th respondent Special Tahsildar to forthwith take up Ext.P2

application and conclude the proceedings by disposing of the same

on merits, after hearing the petitioner, within a time limit to be fixed

by this Court. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus

commanding respondents 2 to 4 or the concerned among them to

take up Ext.P4 and make necessary arrangements for an early

disposal of Ext.P2 application for assignment which proceedings are

initiated through file No.1787/2017/KTPA/93 on the file of the 4 th

respondent.

2. On 12.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for

admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get

instructions as to whether Ext.P2 application is still pending

consideration.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the

learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. The Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960 is enacted to W.P.(C) No.807 OF 2021(A)

provide for the assignment of Government land. Section 3 of the

Act deals with assignment of Government land and Section 4 deals

with the procedure to be followed before Government lands are

assigned. Section 5 deals with order of assignment.

5. In exercise of the powers under Section 7 of the Kerala

Land Assignment Act and in supersession of Rules for assignment of

Government lands, issued under notifications I and II

G.O(P).No.1029/Rev. dated 18.10.1958 published in the Kerala

Gazette Extra Ordinary No.107, the Government of Kerala made the

Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 for assignment of Government

lands. As per Rule 4, which deals with purposes for which land may

be assigned, the Government lands may be assigned on registry for

the purpose of personal cultivation, house sites and beneficial

enjoyment of adjourning registered holdings.

6. Rule 5 of the Rules deals with maximum limits to be

assigned for cultivation; Rule 6 deals with assignment for house site

and for beneficial enjoyment; Rule 7 deals with priority to be

observed in assignment; Rule 7A deals with preference to

kumkidars. Rule 8 deals with conditions of assignment on registry;

and Rule 9 deals with collection of arrears of Government dues and

issue of provisional patta.

W.P.(C) No.807 OF 2021(A)

7. In Varghese Abraham v. State of Kerala, Revenue

Department and others [2007 (3) KHC 365], a Division Bench

of this Court held that various provisions in the Kerala Land

Assignment Act and the Kerala Land Assignment Rules would

unmistakably show that the Act and the Rules are made to protect

the landless people by assigning them Government lands for

cultivation and other purposes. The provisions under the Act and

the Rules are not intended for enriching persons who hold extensive

lands. Assignment on registry of Government lands to such persons

would defeat the very purpose of the Act and the Rules. The

Division Bench held further that, there is no vested right in any

person to claim assignment on registry of Government land.

8. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would

submit that the 4th respondent has already conducted a personal

hearing on 13.01.2021, on Ext.P2 application, and that the said

respondent shall pass appropriate orders thereon, within two weeks.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the petitioner was heard by the 4th respondent, on 13.01.2021.

10. Having considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing

the 4th respondent to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 application W.P.(C) No.807 OF 2021(A)

made by the petitioner for assignment of land, within a period of

two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

judgment.

11. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC

309] the Apex Court held that no mandamus can be issued to direct

the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to

do something which is contrary to law. In Bhaskara Rao A.B. v.

CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259] the Apex Court reiterated that,

generally, no Court has competence to issue a direction contrary to

law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of

the statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of

law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to

what has been injected by law.

12. Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this

judgment, the 4th respondent shall take an appropriate decision in

the matter, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the

relevant statutory provisions and also the law on the point.

No order as to costs.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE bpr W.P.(C) No.807 OF 2021(A)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT OF TRANSFER DATED 22.10.2010 EXECUTED BY SANTHOSH, S/O.GOPINATHAN.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25.11.2017 FOR ASSIGNMENT OF LAND SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 28.11.2017 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15.12.2020 SUBMITTED TO RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4.

EXHIBIT P5              TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE
                        ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE 2ND
                        RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6              TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REGISTRATION
                        SLIP PERTAINING TO ISSUANCE OF EXT. P4
                        TO THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL