IMPORTANT POINTS
After the merger of the Panchayat in the Municipal Corporation, the Corporation is not having any power to assign any property in favour of the writ petitioners other than to grant the property on lease without violating the terms on which the properties were vested in the Municipalities/Corporations. Therefore, in our considered opinion, in view of the prohibitions contained under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the Rules framed thereunder, the properties vested in the local bodies cannot be assigned, transferred, encumbered or alienated in any manner otherwise than permitted under law.

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

1. The first respondent in W.P. (C) No. 16730 of 2011 has filed the appeal challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 20.01.2016. As per the judgment, the learned single Judge directed the appellant to take a decision on Ext.P6 representation filed by the first respondent herein i.e., the first writ petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and convey the decision to the Revenue Authorities and on receipt of the decision of the appellant, the third respondent, i.e., the Tahsildar (LR), Thrissur, to take further steps for the issuance of the patta and to complete the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of judgment in accordance with law. The said directions were rendered after entering into a finding that the erstwhile Panchayat within whose jurisdiction the property was situated earlier passed resolution No. 211 dated 18.08.1988 to inform the Special Tahsildar (Land Assignment) that the Panchayat has no objection in assigning the land in the name of the writ petitioners. It is also an admitted fact that the Panchayat merged with the appellant Corporation and therefore, it was found that the Corporation cannot go back and the said decision is valid, binding and enforceable. It was also held that as per Section 218 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the puramboke property in question was vested with the Panchayat and thereafter, with the appellant Corporation after its constitution. Therefore, it was observed that the first respondent has no objection in granting patta with respect to the property, which is vested with them, and there is no reason to withhold the granting of patta by the Revenue Authorities.

2. Now in the appeal, the Trissur Municipal Corporation has contended that even-though a decision was taken by the Panchayat in the year 1988, the writ petitioners did not pursue the matter for around 14 years, during which time vast developments have taken place in the area and therefore, the Corporation should not have been directed to follow the decision taken by the Panchayat after such a long period. It is also contended that the proceedings to assign the property of the Panchayat was not concluded and therefore, the possession does not bind the Panchayat or Corporation thereafter. That apart, it is contended that as per the provisions of the Assignment of Land within the Municipal and Corporation Areas Rules 1995, a limit is prescribed to the land which can be assigned and therefore, in the light of the provisions contained under the said Rules, the decision of the erstwhile Panchayat found to be binding on the Corporation is not in accordance with law.

3. The basic back-ground facts leading to the writ petition was that the writ petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of a puramboke land having nearly 14 cents in Survey No. 217 of Peringavu Village. The nature of the land was nilam nikathuparambu (converted dry land). According to the writ petitioners, with their continued possession and enjoyment, the property has developed periodically and since the first writ petitioner has no land of his own, he claimed patta for the said land and submitted an application as early as in the year 1988 before the Vilavattom Panchayat. It is further submitted that local bodies as well as the revenue authorities initiated proceedings to issue patta for the land in favour of the first writ petitioner. However, due to the objection raised by his brother and wife, further proceedings has been kept pending and later, the claims raised by others have been amicably settled and pursuant to the further application, the proceedings for issuing patta in favour of the first writ petitioner again re-started. It is also submitted that there are representations recommending the issuance of patta in favour of the writ petitioners by the Village Officer; but due to the lukewarm attitude of the concerned authorities, the matter r