IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.
Johny – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
W.P.(C).No.34034 of 2014
Decided On : 29-07-2020
Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963- S.85(8); S.96, S.96(1A) -Residuary power - Government under S.96(1A) would enable the Government to allot land citing public purpose- The allotment of the land- Police Department for the construction of the Police quarters and other structures-It lacks public purpose- When the Government interest itself is protected, that itself becomes a public purpose.
Statement of facts:
Allotting a land by the Government for the Police Department. This land, admittedly, a land surrendered pursuant to the ceiling proceedings initiated under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 -The petitioner’s father late Padikkala Anthappan was the declarant. According to the petitioner, the land surrendered under the Act after determination of the ceiling can be used only for the purpose as contemplated under S.96 of the Act.
Finding of the court:
The petitioner’s right to question the allotment was available till his claim under S.85(8) is decided. Once that decision is taken and rejected, the petitioner no longer retains any right to question the allotment. The petitioner cannot be treated as any potential beneficiary to raise such a claim as contemplated under S.96. In a private interest litigation, the petitioner also cannot espouse as a public interest litigant, taking up the cause of beneficiaries who may be entitled for the benefits under S.96.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
This Writ Petition was filed seeking the following reliefs:
(i). Call for the records leading to the order passed by the Police Department by G.O.(Rt) No.747/1987 dated 14.05.1987 and Order No.B5 46329/87 dated 21.07.1987 of District Collector, Thrissur, and issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, quashing the same.
(ii). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 5th respondent, District Collector, Thrissur, to produce order, G.O.(Rt) No.747/1987 dated 14.5.1987 and Order No.B5 46329/87 dated 21.07.1987.
(iii). Declare that the action of the District Collector in assigning the land for police department is contrary to the provisions under S.96(1)(ii)(a) of the Land Reforms Act and hence ab initio void,
(iv). Pass such other appropriate writ, order or direction as the Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case,
(v). Award costs.
2. The matter is related to allotting a land by the Government for the Police Department. This land, admittedly, a land surrendered pursuant to the ceiling proceedings initiated under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short, the ‘Act’). The petitioner’s father late Padikkala Anthappan was the declarant. According to the petitioner, the land surrendered under the Act after determination of the ceiling can be used only for the purpose as contemplated under S.96 of the Act.
3. Before going into the merits of the case, it is appropriate to refer certain factual matters which may be required for the disposal of the case. The petitioner has a case that the land which is now the subject matter of the dispute was gifted to him by his father. The petitioner raised a claim invoking S.85(8) of the Act before the Taluk Land Board. This was not considered. This matter was taken up before this Court in W.P.(C) No.26923/2004. That matter was heard along with a Revision Petition filed by the petitioner. This Court disposed both cases by common judgment dated 14.07.2010.
4. The petitioner had raised a contention that the land was allotted in violation of S.96 of the Act. After adverting to the contention, this Court directed the Taluk Land Board to consider whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of the land or not. The Taluk Land Board in its order dated 07.12.2010 rejected the petitioner’s claim. The petitioner took up the matter before this Court in C.R.P. No.112/2011. This Court affirmed the order of the Taluk Land Board. That means, the petitioner’s claim for restoration has been repelled. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Review Petition before this Court. This Court had not considered the allotment of land to the Police Department. The Review Petition was disposed of by this Court on 21.11.2014 holding that there was no pronouncement on merits in regard to the challenge laid as against the order of the Government allotting land to the Police Department. This is how, the petitioner approached this Court by this Writ Petition challenging the allotment of the land to the Police Department.
5. The order of allotment is purportedly as per the Government Order, G.O.(Rt) No.747/1987 dated 14.5.1987. The District Collector also passed certain orders consequent upon the allotment of the land. These orders were not made available before this Court. It appears that these files and orders are missing. The fact now remains that the land has been allotted to the Police Department. It is in this background, the question has to be examined in this Writ Petition. S.96 of the Act contemplates the assignment of lands by the Land Board. The said Section reads thus:
96. Assignment of lands by Land Board.-- [(1) The Land Board shall assign on registry subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed, the lands vested in the Government under Section 86 or Section 87, as specified below:
(i) the lands in which there are kudikidappukars shall be assigned to such kudikidappukars;
(ii) the remaining
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.