IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited, Represented By Its Divisional Manager, S.Ramesh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Kerala, Represented By The Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram and Ors - Respondent
WP(C).No. 36643 of 2007
Decided On : 21-05-2019
Statement of facts:
The Sub Collector Devikulam by proceedings dated 3.7.2007 ordered cancellation of the registry and assignment on finding that the land assigned for cultivation is found used for commercial purposes for running a resort-This order was impugned in appeal before the Land Revenue Commissioner- The Land Revenue Commissioner also affirmed the order of the Sub Collector, cancelling the assignment- These orders are impugned in the writ petition.
Finding of the court
The principles of estoppel and waiver cannot be pressed against an action of the Government based on public policy- No action of the Government would bind them if it was against the public policy of the State-
Result: Writ petition is dismissed.
1. This writ petition was filed challenging the cancellation of the registry of assigned land under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 (the “Rules” for short).
2. The Sub Collector Devikulam by proceedings dated 3.7.2007 ordered cancellation of the registry and assignment on finding that the land assigned for cultivation is found used for commercial purposes for running a resort. This order was impugned in appeal before the Land Revenue Commissioner. The Land Revenue Commissioner also affirmed the order of the Sub Collector, cancelling the assignment. These orders are impugned in the writ petition.
3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri Jayakumar and learned Counsel Shri Gilbert George Correya appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General, Shri Ranjith Thamban, learned State Attorney Shri K.V.Sohan ably assisted by the learned Government Pleader Shri K.J.Mohd.Anzar.
4. The petitioner M/s.Mahindra Holidays India Resort Limited is running a resort in Chinnakkanal Village in Survey No.20/1 in land having an extent of 9.16 acres. The petitioner obtained this land from Shri J.Thavamani and Shri Varkey Antony. Thavamani obtained an assignment of 2.61 acres of land. Varkey Antony also obtained an assignment of 2.76 acres of land. Remaining extent of land alleged to be in occupation of the petitioner is by way of encroachment. It is alleged that 1.0563 hectares (3.7 acres) of Government land has been encroached by the petitioner. In the assignment, certain conditions were stipulated. These conditions would form part of the statutory form of patta as referable under Rule 9(2) of the Rules. It is specifically stipulated that alienation of land is strictly prohibited for a period of 10 years and in that event, the Government would resume the land without paying any compensation. The Kerala Land Assignment Rules came into force in the year 1964. The assignment in favour of the original patta holder Thavamani was on 15.9.1965 and in favour of Varkey Antony was in the year 1970. The petitioner purchased the land from Thavamani and Varkey Antony in the year 1984. They constructed a resort immediately thereafter. The constructed building was also assessed to Building Tax in accordance with the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The Department Of Tourism, Kerala, also issued certificates for Tourism purposes. In terms of the Land Assignment Act and Rules, land can be assigned only for certain specified purposes. These purposes are specified in Rule 4 of the Rules. It specifically states that Government land may be assigned on registry for the purposes of personal cultivation, house sites and beneficial enjoyment of adjoining registered holdings. However, a residuary power is given to the Government under Rule 24 of the Rules to assign land for any other purposes on public interest. Sub Rule 2 to Rule 8 of the Rules stipulate a positive covenant obliging assignee to use the land for the purpose for which it was assigned. There was no condition in the form of patta issued that registry would be cancelled if there is any violation of Sub Rule 2, nor there was any statutory Rule at the relevant time for cancellation on violation of Sub Rule 2. However, the Rule was amended in the year 1971 by incorporating a provision for cancellation on contraventions of provisions of Sub Rule 2 as well. This was so incorporated in Sub Rule 3 to Rule 8. Admittedly, the patta was issued prior to incorporating the provisions in the year 1971 for cancellation of the patta for violation of Sub Rule 2. The crux of the legal issue in this matter revolves around the validity of the order of cancellation in the absence of any provisions in the patta or statutory rule at the time of issuance of patta.
5. The specific purpose for which land can be assigned is referred in Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. It has two objectives. One of the objectives mentioned therein is to assign land on public interest; these assignments are for person
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.