Kerala High Court

Muhammed vs The Taluk Tahsildar on 20 October, 2021

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
  WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 28TH ASWINA, 1943
                    WP(C) NO. 33291 OF 2011
PETITIONERS:

    1     MUHAMMED, S/O.PAREED KHADAR, AGED 49 YEARS
          PATTARUMADOM HOUSE,ARAKKAPPADY VILLAGE, VENGOLA KARA.
    2     CHELAKKULAM PAURA SAMITHI, REPRESENTED BY
          ITS CONVENER,V.A.IBRAHIM,VELLEKKATTU KARAVATHUKUDY
          HOUSE,CHELAKKULAM,VENGOLA P.O, PERUMBAVOOR 683 554.
          BY ADV SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE TALUK TAHSILDAR,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, KUNNATHUNADU
          TALUK OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR 683 542.
    2     KUNNATHUNADU TALUK LAND ASSIGNMENT
          COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, TAHSILDAR,
          KUNNATHUNADU TALUK OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR 683 542.
    3     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
          ARAKKAPPADY VILLAGE, P.O VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR 683
          554.
    4     DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD
          P.O, 682 030.
    5     DEPUTY COLLECTOR,REVENUE VIGILANCE
          CENTRAL ZONE,MINI CIVIL STATION,
          TRIPUNITHURA,ERNAKULAM DIST.682 301.
    6     REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,MUVATTUPUZHA. 686 673.
    7     STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE
          DEPT.,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695
          001.
          GOVERNMENT PLEADER-SRI.K.M FAISAL

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.9.2021, THE COURT ON 20.10.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) 33291/2011                       2


                              JUDGMENT

The first petitioner states that he is a landless person residing in a

rented house in Kunnathunadu Taluk in Ernakulam District and the

second petitioner is Chelakkulam Paura Samithi, an association which

claims to be formed to keep vigil to prevent encroachment of

purambokku land and to voice against illegal assignment of

government land in Kunnathunadu Taluk.

2. The petitioners state that there is a large extent of government

assignable purambokku land in Sy.Nos.437/1, 437/1 pt, 437/2, 431/3,

430/2, 431/4, 436/1 in Block No.22 of Arakkappady Village of

Kunnathunadu Taluk. The first petitioner had submitted Ext.P6

application for assignment of land in these Sy. Nos. for construction of

a house. According to the petitioners, without considering the

application of the first petitioner and others who are genuinely entitled

for assignment, steps are being taken by the respondents to assign the

land to ineligible persons and without following the procedures

prescribed under the Kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules. Though

the petitioners submitted Exts.P1 to P4 representations before the

respondents requesting to assign the purambokku land to landless

persons instead of ineligible persons, no action whatsoever was taken

by the respondents on such representations. Accordingly, the

petitioners have filed the writ petition for the following reliefs:-

I) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ commanding the 1st and 2nd respondents not to assign the purambokku land as per Basic Tax Register (BTR) comprised in Sy. No.s 437/1, 437/1 pt, 437/2, 431/3, 430/2, 431/4, 436/1, in Block No. 22 of Arakkappady Village of Kunnathunadu Taluk to any applicant in violation of Kerala Govt. Land Assignment Act, 1960 and Kerala Govt. Land Assignment Rules, 1964.

II) Issue a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to measure out, demarcate and enlist the assignable land in Sy. No.s 437/1, 437/1 pt, 437/2, 431/3, 430/2, 431/4, 436/1 in Block No. 22 of Arakkappady Village of Kunnathunadu Taluk.

III) Issue a direction to the 5th respondent to enquire and take necessary steps including disciplinary action against those who are responsible for the assignment of land to ineligible applicants out of the land comprised in Sy. No.s 437/1, 437/1 pt, 437/2, 431/3, 430/2, 431/4, 436/1 in Block No. 22 of Arakkappady Village of Kunnathunadu Taluk and direct them to take steps to cancel the Patta issued in violation of the Kerala Govt. Land Assignment Rules.

IV) Issue a direction to the 1st and 4th respondents to take immediate steps to evict the trespassers of the purambokku land situated in Sy. No.s 437/1, 437/1 pt, 437/2, 431/3, 430/2, 431/4, 436/1 in Block No.22 of Arakkappady Village of Kunnathunadu Taluk.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first

respondent wherein it is stated that the first petitioner and other

applicants are not in occupation of the land to which they have applied

for assignment and as per the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, it

is not possible to consider their applications for assignment. It is stated

that the lands comprised in Sy. Nos.437/2 and 430/2 are not assignable

lands and the lands comprised in Sy. Nos.431/4 and 436/1 are

Government puramboke and are occupied by persons other than the 1st

petitioner and other applicants. The first respondent states that a total

of three assignments were carried out in Sy. Nos.436/1 and 437/1 of

Re. Sy. Block No.22 of Arakkappady Village and all the three

assignees were in occupation of the land for over 15 years and before

that, the land was occupied by their predecessors. The assignment is

possible only for residential purpose for landless people and the area is

limited to 6.07 Ares. Since the first petitioner or the other applicants

are not residing in the land applied for assignment, they are not eligible

for assignment.

4. When the writ petition came up for hearing, Sri. Siraj Karoly,

the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the light of the

counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, the petitioners limit their

prayer for consideration of prayer No.4. viz., direction to the

respondents 1 and 4 to take immediate steps to evict the trespassers of

the purambokku land situated in Sy. Nos.437/1, 437/1 pt, 437/2, 431/3,

430/2, 431/4, 436/1 in Block No.22 of Arakkappady Village of

Kunnathunadu Taluk.

5. According to the first respondent, the land has been assigned

only to eligible persons. The petitioners however submit that most of

the persons to whom the land has been assigned are ineligible persons

and the assignment has been made in breach of the provisions of the

Kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules. It is also submitted that the

government lands in the aforesaid survey numbers are trespassed and

occupied by several persons and respondents 1 and 4 shall be directed

to take steps to evict the trespassers of the purambokku property. The

petitioners contend that, in the light of the decision reported in Youth

Voice Arts Social and Cultural Organization v. State of Kerala

[2001 (3) KLT 909: 2001 KHC 823: 2001 (2) KLJ 761], even if the

1st petitioner or other applicants, whose cause the 2nd respondent

espouses are not residing in the land applied for assignment or that

they are ineligible for assignment, the petitioners still have the locus

standi to challenge the assignment of the said land to ineligible persons

and to seek eviction of unauthorized occupants from such land. In the

said decision, this Court observed thus:-

"12....In a case where the authorities are taking steps to assign government property to a private person discarding and bypassing statutory inhibitions and mandatory provisions a petition brought under Art.226 of the Constitution to interdict the perpetuation of the illegality and resultant injury to public cannot be thrown overboard by conducting an investigation into the juristic existence of the petitioner."

6. Further, this Court, in Mahindra Holiday Resorts India Ltd.

v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (2) KLT 978:2019 (3) KHC

233:2019 (3) KLJ 166: ILR 2019 (2) Ker. 828], observed as follows:-

"7....The Government is only a public trustee of the land belonging to the State. The Government cannot assign land on their whims and fancies. The land is a natural resource of utmost importance. Therefore, the Government can distribute the natural resources only adhering to the principles of public trust. No land can be assigned ignoring the public interest and detrimental to the public interest.

7. The Government, being a public trustee, is answerable to the

public. No doubt, the public can question if the government land is

assigned to ineligible persons or trespassed or encroached upon.

However, the petitioners have to approach the authorities under the

Land Conservancy Act and the Rules framed thereunder if the

government lands are illegally occupied or trespassed.

8. Whether the government land is illegally occupied or

trespassed by any persons, are not matters that can be decided by this

Court in the writ petition. It is for the petitioners to ventilate their

grievances before the competent authority under the Land

Conservancy Act and the Rules framed thereunder or such other

appropriate proceedings in the manner known to law, for dealing with