Kerala High Court
Bijimon K.R vs State Of Kerala on 6 June, 2024
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946
RP NO. 357 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.28725 OF 2022 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
BIJIMON K.R.
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.RAJAPPAN, KUTTIKKATTU HOUSE, PERUMTHOTTI P.O.,
THOPPRAMKUDY, IDUKKI DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT
HARICHANDANAM HOUSE, LISSIE CONVENT ROAD, ERNAKULAM
NORTH P.O., KOCHI, PIN - 682018
BY ADV GEORGE ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
R.P.No.357/2024 in W.P. (C).No.28725/2022
-:2:-
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
PAINAV, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685603
3 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ASSIGNMENT),
MURIKKASSERY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685602
4 HEAD SURVEYOR,
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ASSIGNMENT),
MURIKKASSERY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685602
BY ADVS.
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
SHRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL()
SHRI S.RENJITH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.No.357/2024 in W.P. (C).No.28725/2022
-:3:-
O R D E R
Dated this the 6th day of June, 2024
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This review petition is at the instance of the petitioner in
the writ petition.
2. There are two set of arguments raised in this review.
One is based on the Kerala Land Assignment (Regularisation of
Occupation of Forest Lands Prior to 1-1-1977) Special Rules, 1993.
We are not impressed with the said argument as we have dealt with
the above Special Rules in the Judgment itself. Therefore, this
argument fails. The second argument of the learned Senior Counsel
for the review petitioner is that the documents produced by the
petitioner itself would establish that it is a cardamom land and,
therefore, the direction in the judgment that the petitioner should
be evicted is legally unsustainable. It is submitted that the
R.P.No.357/2024 in W.P. (C).No.28725/2022
petitioner is entitled to keep possession of the land. This
argument is meritorious and requires some consideration.
3. As seen from Ext.P1, lease was granted to the
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. Exts.P2 and P3 would
also establish that the lease was subsisting. The learned Special
Government Pleader pointing out to Rule 14 of the Rules for Lease
of Government Lands for Cardamom Cultivation, 1961, would argue
that the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser from the lease
holder. He obtained the property by change of hands; that too,
without sanction of the District Collector and, therefore, he
cannot claim for any protection.
4. There cannot be much dispute to the fact that the land
is a Cardamom land as seen from Exts.P1 to P3 and P24, and also
the Register produced before this Court by the learned Senior
Government Pleader.
5. Rule 14 of the Rules for Lease of Government Lands for
Cardamom Cultivation, 1961, states as follows:
R.P.No.357/2024 in W.P. (C).No.28725/2022
The lessee shall not, on his own accord, determine the lease during
the currency of the lease. No leasehold or part thereof, shall be
alienated without the prior sanction of the District Collector and in
every case in which alienation is sanctioned, the party shall be charged
with a fee calculated at the rate of Rs.5 per hectare.
6. As seen from the records, no prior sanction was obtained
from the District Collector. It does not mean that no sanction
should be granted by the District Collector. If the petitioner is
maintaining the land as Cardamom land, absolutely, there is no
difficulty for the District Collector for granting permission to
petitioner. It appears that the petitioner had constructed a
residential building and a cow shed. That as such may not affect
holding Cardamom cultivation. Anyway, in this matter, it has now
come out that the land is now being used for cardamom cultivation
and other agricultural activities. Therefore, we are of the view
that the impugned judgment has to be reviewed to the extent of
ordering eviction. The order of eviction is reviewed. We,
therefore, direct the District Collector to sanction lease hold
right by regularisation of alienation to the petitioner based on
R.P.No.357/2024 in W.P. (C).No.28725/2022
the application to be preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner
undertook before this Court that the application will be filed
within two weeks. Thereafter, within one month, the application
shall be considered. The District Collector can also levy
necessary fees for sanctioning alienation. Thereafter, the
petitioner shall hold the property on such terms and conditions as
may be imposed by the District Collector. Symbolic possession
taken by the District Administration based on the direction of this
Court is now cancelled and, we order that the petitioner to be in
legal possession of the land for all purposes. Once regularisation
of alienation is sanctioned, necessary lease shall be executed
based on the orders to be passed by the District Collector.
The review petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JUDGE
ms
R.P.No.357/2024 in W.P. (C).No.28725/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS CONTAINING THE
PROPERTY TAX PAYMENT DOWNLOADED FROM
WEBSITE OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY
Annexure B THE COPIES OF SURVEY SKETCH IN WHICH
DERESERVED FOREST OF MUNNAR DIVISION,
MUNNAR FOREST DIVISION AND KOTTAYAM
DIVISION WERE ISSUED
Annexure C TRUE COPY OF THE FOREST (CONSERVATION)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023 (NO.15 OF 2023) DATED
04-08-2023 AMENDED FOREST CONSERVATION ACT,
Annexure D A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE
NEWS PAPER REPORT IN MALAYALAMANORAMA DAILY
DATED 08-02-2024
