Kerala High Court
M/S.Kondosokai Leisure India (Pvt)Ltd vs The District Collector on 16 February, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 6169 OF 2016
PETITIONER/S:
M/S.KONDOSOKAI LEISURE INDIA (PVT)LTD.
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MR.T.M.LOUIS,
S/O.MAICHLEL,
AGED 72 YEARS,
THYKKOOTTATHIL HOUSE,
MANASSERY,
KANNAMALI, KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
P.M.JOSHI
K.J.GLADIS
SIJI K.PAUL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -33.
3 TAHSILDAR (R.R.),
KOCHI TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PALLURUTHY VILLAGE OFFICE,
PALLURUTHY.
5 A.G.SAMJAD,
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.A.M.GAFOOR,
NO.84,
OLD RAJENDER NAGAR MARKET,
LUCKY HOUSE,
NEW DELHI 110060.
WP(C)No.6169 of 2016
2
6 R.Y.NISSAR,
S/O.USAF,
AGED 51 YEARS,
C.C.2/830A,
RAMATTU, C.P.TODU DESAM,
FORT KOCHI VILLAGE,
KOCHI TALUK,
FORTKOCHI P.O., PIN- 682 301.
7 M.SUHRA,
W/O.A.M.NAUSHAD,
AGED 47 YEARS
C.C.NO.12/1355,
RAMESWARAM PADINJAREMURIYIL,
THOPPUMPADI P.O.,
THOPPUMPADI VILLAGE,
KOCHI- 682 005.
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS
P.K.SHAKKEELA
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. BINOY DAVIS (GP)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C)No.6169 of 2016
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a company incorporated under
the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner has approached
this Court challenging the Revenue Recovery proceedings
initiated against the petitioner for recovery of an amount of
Rs.1,87,532/- being arrears of lease rent in respect of two
cents of property comprised in Sy.No.1251 of Mattanchery
Village, which was under lease to the predecessor in
interest of the petitioner.
2. The District Collector, Ernakulam, by Ext.P6
order, had considered the objections taken by the petitioner
and had confirmed the demand for payment of lease rent
against the petitioner. An appeal filed by the petitioner
before the Commissioner of Land Revenue was also
rejected by Ext.P7 order. A petition filed by the petitioner
before the Government was rejected by Ext.P9 finding that
no revision was maintainable. It is in the above
circumstances that the petitioner has approached this
Court by filing the above writ petition.
3. The matter was argued at length by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. However, it was not
disputed that the two cents of property, which is presently
in the possession of the petitioner, is government land and
the same had been mentioned as Government land in
Exts.P1 and P2 documents under which the petitioner
obtained title of the neighbouring land and the possession
of the land having an extent of two cents in Sy.No.1251 of
Mattanchery Village.
4. When the petitioner approached this Court
earlier by filing W.P.(C)No.12392 of 2012, the same was
disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment directing the authorities to
consider the claim of the petitioner on the basis of which
the claim of the petitioner was considered and Ext.P6 order
was issued.
5. When this matter is taken up for
consideration today, it is the submission of the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner that the land has been
in the possession of the petitioner/his predecessor in
interest for more than fifty years and no useful purpose
would be served by retaining the said land as Government
land. It is submitted that, in such circumstances, the claim
of the petitioner for assignment may be directed to be
considered by the competent authority, in accordance with
the law.
6. The learned Government Pleader submits
that the claim of the petitioner for assignment can be
considered only in terms of the Rules for Assignment of
Land within Municipal and Corporation Areas Rules,
1995. It is submitted that, in terms of Rule 5 of the
aforesaid Rules, the assignment of land can be considered
provided the extent of land sought to be assigned is less
than five cents in municipal areas and is less than three
cents in corporation areas and upon payment of land value
at market rate. It is also pointed out that, by virtue of the
provisions contained in Sub Rule (2) of Rule 5, where the
land is held under an existing lease, lease rent, if any,
outstanding against such land should be cleared by the
petitioner before issuing any orders regarding assignment
of the land.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and
having regard to the provisions of Rule 5 of the
Assignment of Land within Municipal and Corporation
Areas Rules, 1995 and having perused Exts.P6 and P7
orders, I am of the view that the claim of the petitioner for
assignment can be considered in terms of the provisions
contained in Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules, since the extent
of land, in respect of which assignment is now sought, is
only two cents. The provisions of Rule 5 also indicate that,
even where Government land is held under a lease, the
lessee may apply for assignment of the land, subject to the
compliance of the provisions contained in the Rules. Sub
Rule (2) of Rule 5 makes it clear that, before issuing orders
on the application for assignment, the lessee must remit
any arrears of lease rent.
8. Taking into consideration the above, this writ
petition will stand disposed of directing the first respondent
(District Collector, Ernakulam) to consider whether the
land, which is subject matter of Exts.P6 and P7 orders, can
be assigned to the petitioner on registry, in terms of the
provisions contained in Rule 5 of the Assignment of Land
within Municipal and Corporation Areas Rules, 1995. In
order to enable the consideration of the matter by the first
respondent, the petitioner shall file an appropriate
application in such form as may be prescribed, within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this judgment. While filing such application, the
petitioner shall also produce proof of the fact that lease
rent in respect of the said property till the date of filing of
the application has been remitted in full by the petitioner, in
compliance with the provisions of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 5 of
the Rules. Any amount deposited by the petitioner under
orders of this Court shall be given credit to. If the first
respondent is of the opinion that there is any short fall in
the amount of lease rent remitted by the petitioner in terms
of the aforesaid direction, it will be open to the first
respondent to demand the payment of such lease rent
before considering the application for assignment.
The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
directions. The first respondent shall endeavour to pass
orders on the application to be filed for assignment within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this judgment. If the application is not filed within
the aforesaid period, the petitioner will lose the benefit of
the directions contained in this judgment.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P., JUDGE
rkj
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6169/2016
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.5526/2005
OF SRO, KOCHI DATED 19.11.2005
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1850/2006
OF SRO, KOCHI DATED 10.4.2006
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED
18.12.2007 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
16.9.2010 BY PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
30.5.2012 IN WPC NO.12392 OF 2012
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
30.7.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 15.12.2014
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF APPEAL NO.11556/2015
DATED 20.02.2015
EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
27.5.2015 FROM THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
THE GOVERNMENT
