Back
1989 Supreme(SC) 622
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N.Singh : N.M.Kasliwal
N.Viswanatha Iyer
Versus
State Of Kerala
Case No. : 1445 of 1987
Date of Decision : 12/5/89
Advocates Appeared: Balakrishnan S. : Iyer G.Vishwanatha : Nambiar K.R. : Nambiyar A.S. : Raghavan Ravathy
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 - Rules framed under Cardamom Cultivation Act, 1961 – Rule 3 - Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 – Section 7 - Government land – Lease - Appellant had encroached upon government land to extent of acres - He applied for the grant of lease of the said government land under Rule 3 of Rules framed under Cardamom Cultivation Act, 1961 (sic) read with S. 7 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 - Special Officer Cardamom Settlement Devicolam rejected appellant application on findings that since appellant was holding acres of land, he was riot entitled to any lease under Rule 3 of aforesaid Rules - Appellant filed an appeal against order of Special Officer before Board of Revenue, Trivandrum - Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal on findings that appellant was not entitled to any lease of the government land encroached upon by him - Appellant thereafter filed a revision petition before State government but that too was dismissed on findings recorded by Board of Revenue - Thereafter appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution before High court challenging the orders of State government and other authorities – Held, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, court do not find any ground to interfere with order of the High court - Rule 3 provides for the grant of lease to a person who may have encroached upon the government land to the extent of acres - Rule further provides that maximum area that may be leased to a person shall be acres and it further provides that no such lease shall be granted to a person if he has other land with him and on the grant of lease area of land available to him will be more than said acres - Rule provides that a maximum area of acres can be leased out to a person provided land already held by him together with lease land of acres does not exceed said acres - All the authorities including the Board of Revenue and government have recorded findings of fact that appellant was already holding land to the extent of acres, as such he was not entitled to any lease of government land encroached upon by him - Appellant raised a plea that acres of land was not held by him in his individual capacity instead it was joint family property, this plea was rejected as the appellant failed to prove it - Court have gone through records placed before court by learned counsel of appellant but court do not find any error in the view taken by High court - Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
A.S.NAMBIYAR, G.VISHVANATHA IYER, K.R.NAMBIAR, Ravathy Raghavan, S.BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGMENT
K.N.SINGH, J.
(1) THIS appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High court of Kerala dated 3/10/1985 dismissing the appellantS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2) THE appellant had encroached upon government land to the extent of 30.87 acres. He applied for the grant of lease of the said government land under Rule 3 of the Rules framed under the Cardamom Cultivation Act, 1961 (sic) read with S. 7 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 . The Special Officer Cardamom Settlement Devicolam rejected the appellantS application on the findings that since the appellant was holding 67.87 acres of land, he was riot entitled to any lease under Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules. The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the Special Officer before the Board of Revenue, Trivandrum. The Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal on the findings that the appellant was not entitled to any lease of the government land encroached upon by him. The appellant thereafter filed a revision petition before the State government but that too was dismissed on the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue. Thereafter the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High court challenging the orders of the State government and other authorities. The High court dismissed the petition, hence this appeal.
(3) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the High court. Rule 3 provides for the grant of lease to a person who may have encroached upon the government land to the extent of 25 acres. The rule further provides that the maximum area that may be leased to a person shall be 25 acres and it further provides that no such lease shall be granted to a person if he has other land with him and on the grant of lease the area of land available to him will be more than 60 acres. Thus the rule provides that a maximum area of 25 acres can be leased out to a person provided the land already held by him together with lease land of 25 acres does not exceed 60 acres. All the authorities including the Board of Revenue and the government have recorded findings of fact that the appellant was already holding land to the extent of 67.87 acres, as such he was not entitled to any lease of the government land encroached upon by him. The appellant raised a plea that 67.87 acres of land was not held by him in his individual capacity instead it was joint family property, this plea was rejected as the appellant failed to prove it.
(4) WE have gone through the records placed before us by the learned counsel of the appellant but we do not find any error in the view taken by the High court. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order stands discharged. There will be no order as to costs.
