Back
2009 Supreme(Ker) 438
High Court Of Kerala
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SIRI JAGAN
Government Employees Recreation Club - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by its Secretary to Revenue Department, Thiruvananthapuram - Respondents
OP.No.30284 of 2002 (E)
Decided On : 18 June 2009
Headnote:
Kerala Land Assignment Rules 1964 - Rule. 4 and 24 - Registry of Land - Purpose of which land may be assigned - Powers of Government - Assignment of land - Purpose of running a club - why the petitioner should not be evicted from the land, since the petitioner's occupation of the same is unauthorised. Despite the objections of the petitioner by Ext.P13 held that since the lease has been terminated by the Collector, the petitioner's objections cannot be accepted. Accordingly, prohibitory assessment was made on the petitioner under S.8 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. By Ext.P13(a) notice of the same date, the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises. Thereafter, by Ext.P29, the Village Officer directed the petitioner to lock the building and to keep the key with the petitioner for the present. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this Original Petition seeking the relief - Appeal - Held, The Act and Rules relate to assignment of land to individuals. Under R.4 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules lands may be assigned only for 3 purposes, viz., (a) for personal cultivation (b) house sites, and (c) beneficial enjoyment of adjoining registered holdings. R. 7 speaks of priority of persons in the matter of assignment of Government land. The petitioner is not a person referred to in the Act and Rules as a person who can seek assignment of Government land. The purpose for which the petitioner seeks assignment, i.e. for running a club, is also not one of the three purposes for which assignment of land is permissible under rules. Therefore, there is no legal duty cast on the Government to consider the application for assignment filed by the petitioner. Without a legal obligation on the part of the Government to consider an application for assignment filed by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot seek a mandamus to the Government to dispose of such an application for assignment - The said section can only support an assignment by the Government dispensing with the provisions of the rules in public interest and does not confer any right on anybody to claim an assignment in public interest. The purpose for which R.24 can be invoked has to be a purpose much more important than the one for which the petitioner desires it - Court find no merit in the Original Petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
In this original petition, the petitioner challenges proceedings of the authorities for eviction of the petitioner under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act from 5 cents of Government land in Re. Sy.No. 17/1A//1A2A in Koothuparamba village in Thalassery Taluk leased to the petitioner and seeks assignment of that land to the petitioner under the kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules.
2. The petitioner claims to be a registered association of Government and Semi-Government employees, formed for the intellectual, mental, spiritual and physical development and welfare of its members, named "Government Employees Recreation Club". By Ext.P2 Government order No. G.O(MS) No. 486/72/Rev. Dated 4.5.1972, an extent of 5 cents of Government land in Rs.No.17/1A1A2 of Koothuparamba village was leased to the petitioner. As stipulated under clause 2 thereof, the petitioner constructed a building for the club within the prescribed time, which is being used for the functioning of the club. By Ext.P3, the Government revised the lease rent payable by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was paying the lease rent promptly. While so, the petitioner filed an application dated 12.12.1990 before the Government for assignment of the said land to the petitioner. By Ext.P4 dated 19.1.1991, the petitioner was informed that the application was forwarded to the District Collector, Kannur, for further necessary action. By Ext.P5, the Government called for a report on the application of the petitioner, from Secretary of the Board of Revenue. The local MLA also represented to the Government in favors of the petitioner and by Ext.P6 dated 19.9.1996, the MLA was informed by the then Revenue Minister that the Principal Secretary (Revenue) has been directed to submit a report on the subject urgently. While so, the Collector, by Ext.P7 proceedings dated 24.4.97, informed the petitioner that the lease rent of the land has been fixed for the period from 1.4.82 to 31.3.96 as stated therein, consequent to which lease rent of Rs. 89,408/- is in arrears and demanding payment thereof failing which the Tahsildar was directed to take steps to recover the same. By Ext.P8 dated 28.7.98, the Government stayed the recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7. But, by Ext.P9 dated 6.4.2000, the Government informed the petitioner that since, as per judgment dated 10.2.1998 in O.P.No. 22671/97 of this Court, the land in Re.Sy.No. 17/1A1A can be used only for Government purposes the petitioner's representation for assignment cannot be considered. Accordingly, the stay granted was also withdrawn. Thereafter, as evidenced by Ext.P11 receipt, the petitioner paid the lease rent demanded by Ext.P7.
3. Thereafter, by Ext.P12 notice dated nil-12-2000, issued under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, the Additional Tahsildar, Thalassery, directed the petitioner to show cause why the petitioner should not be evicted from the land, since the petitioner's occupation of the same is unauthorized. Despite the objections of the petitioner by Ext.P13 dated 17.1.2001, the Addl. Tahsildar held that since the lease has been terminated by the collector, the petitioner's objections cannot be accepted. Accordingly prohibitory assessment was made on the petitioner under Section 8 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. By Ext.P13(a) notice of the same date, the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises. The petitioner filed Ext.P14 appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. By Ext.P16 dated 3.3.2001, the Revenue Divisional Officer stayed the order of the Additional Tahsildar pending disposal of the petition filed by the petitioner before the Government for assignment of the land. By Ext.P26 dated 12.4.02, the R.D.O. directed the petitioner to produce orders on the application of the petitioner for assignment. Since the petitioner did not produce any, by Ext.P27 dated 31.5.2002, The R.D.O. directed the petitioner to show cause why the petitioner should not be evicted from the prope
