SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Ker) 72

High Court of Kerala
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Dhanwantari
Versus
State Of Kerala & Others
WP(C).No. 35610 of 2010 (A)
Decided on : 20-01-2011

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:S. Sreekumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Government Pleader.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Land Acquisition Act and the Defence of India Rules in determining the legality of possession and the Government's authority to reject lease requests.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition - Neyyar Dam - Land Acquisition Act - Section 4, Section 6, Section 9, Section 11, Section 18 - The court discussed the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, particularly Section 4 (Preliminary investigation), Section 6 (Declaration of intended acquisition), Section 9 (Acquisition of part of house or building), Section 11 (Enquiry and award by Collector), and Section 18 (Power to take possession) in the context of the acquisition of land near Neyyar Dam and the subsequent lease and possession by the petitioner Ashram. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions, especially in relation to the legality of the Ashram's possession and the applicability of the Defence of India Rules.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Dhanwantari Ashram, challenged an order passed by the Government regarding the lease of land near Neyyar Dam. The land was acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act and leased to the original owners, with conditions to prevent soil erosion. The petitioner claimed possession of the land after the original lessee's demise and sought a long-term lease, which was rejected by the Government.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had no legal right to retain possession of the land, especially in the context of the Defence of India Rules, and upheld the Government's decision to reject the petitioner's lease request.

Issues: The main issues were the legality of the petitioner's possession of the acquired land, the applicability of the Defence of India Rules, and the Government's authority to reject the petitioner's lease request.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Land Acquisition Act and the Defence of India Rules, determining the legality of the petitioner's possession and the Government's authority to reject the lease request.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the Government's decision to reject the petitioner's lease request, and directing the refund of the remitted amount.

Judgment :

Petitioner is Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Dhanwantari Ashram. In this writ petition, they challenge Ext.P18, an order passed by the first respondent Government.

2. 5 chain belt area of land situated near to the Neyyar Dam was acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act on payment of full compensation to the owners and the land so acquired were leased out to the original owners themselves, subject to the condition that they will prevent soil erosion by planting soil binding trees, based on the directions issued by the Soil Conservation Department. In pursuance to the above, 4.5 acres of land belonging to one Ayyappan Pillai was also acquired and the land was given on lease to Ayyappan Pillai himself, subject to the aforesaid conditions. These are evident from Exts.P2 and P3 orders issued in 1961. According to the petitioner, Ayyappan Pillai continued in possession of this land, planted various trees and constructed a small temple and being a devotee of the petitioner Ashram, he was also engaged in its activities. It would appear that after the expiry of Ayyappan Pillai and his son, the petitioner retained possession of the land, maintaining the temple, other structures and the plantation and was using the land for its spiritual activities.

3. According to the petitioner, some time during January, 2010, an attempt was made by the respondents to auction the usufructs in the land. At that stage, petitioner approached the Government objecting to the proposed auction. Having failed to secure any order, they approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.3531/2010. In that writ petition, interim orders were passed, restraining the respondents from proceeding with the auction and the case was finally disposed of by Ext.P15 judgment, directing consideration of a representation made by the petitioner to lease the land to them. In pursuance to the directions in the judgment, petitioner was issued Ext.P16 notice for personal hearing. In response to the notice, they appeared and submitted Ext.P1 application requesting to lease the land for a period of 99 years. Their request was considered and was rejected by Ext.P18 order. In Ext.P18, the following findings have been entered into by the respondents:-

" Various aspects pointed out by the petitioner in the representations Exts.P7, P8 and P12, deposition dated 10-08-2010 and all the contentions raised at the hearing dated 10-08-2010 were subjected to indepth examination by Government in consultation with the Chief Engineer, Project II, Irrigation Department and with reference to the connected records and reports of Irrigation Department and Revenue Department, related to this case. The following findings are made:-

(1) The status of the land possessed unauthorisedly by the Ashram is the land 'acquired' by Government for the construction and maintenance of the Neyyar Dam.

(2) Sri.Ayyappan Pillai, the original lessee and his successors have no legal authority to transfer Government (acquired) land to the Ashram.

(3) Ext.P2 + Ext.P3 are submitted by the Ashram to claim their right of ownership purchased from Sri.Ayyappan Pillai. But it is null and void due to the following in items No.(4) and (5):-

(4) Ext.P2 in the W.P. is Letter No.A4/504/62(C) dated 17-11-1962 of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Thiruvananthapuram to the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation South Circle, giving report on the request of Sri.Ayyappan Pillai for exempting his land from acquisition. It is only for consideration "after contour bunding is completed and Tapioca Cultivation is stopped by the cultivator". Therefore, this letter is not an order assigning any legal right of ownership over the Government acquired land to Sri.Ayyappan Pillai, his successors or to the subsequent possessor, the Ashram. (5) Ext.P3 in the writ petition is the copy abstract of G.O.(MS)494/61 dated 19-05-1961 of the Revenue Department, stipulating guidelines for the conservation of the Neyyar Da
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top