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

2020 Supreme(Ker) 996

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.
Hidayathulla, S/o. Hamza - Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala, represented by Secretary to The Government, Revenue Department, Government Secretariat & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 21925 of 2019 (M)
Decided On : 22-12-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. C.M. Mohammed Iquabal.
For the Respondent: Government Pleader, Sri Jaffar Khan Y- Government Pleader.

Point of Law: Need to retain and restore water bodies and held that water bodies are inalienable.

Headnote:

Constitution of India 1950 – Article 226 – Writ –The Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960 - Section 2, 2(2), 3, 3(1), 7 - Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 - 4, 5, 5(1),5(2),7,7(2),(3), 15,15(1)(2)(3)(4)- Lease deed – original lease holder died - Assignment of Land – Legal heir of deceased - Petitioner and others submitted a representation before the District Collector, Malappuram for assigning the land. Meantime, the petitioner also approached before this Hon'ble Court seeking a direction to take steps to assign the land in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased mother - Hon'ble High Court directed the 2nd respondent, i.e., the District Collector, to consider and pass orders on representation submitted by the petitioner within the period of two months

Finding of the Court:

It is not in dispute that after the death of Sainaba, her legal heirs including the petitioner had renewed the lease upto 2013. Thereafter, the lease was not renewed. In the year 2014, the said land was proposed for a Government project, namely, 'Zero Landless Kerala', for the purpose of distributing land to landless persons. For that purpose, the said land was taken into possession by the 4th respondent Village Officer, as directed by the 3rd respondent Tahsildar, after terminating the permissive possession of the lease holder - When the land in question having an extent of 2 acres of Mangalam Village is puzha puramboke, it cannot be assigned to the petitioner and other legal heirs of late Sainaba.

Result: Writ petition dismissed

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is one of the legal heirs of one Puthiyakath Kinattingal Sainaba, who was in possession of 2 Acres of Government Puramboke land in Sy.No.59/14 of Mangalam Village, which was leased out to her for a considerably a long period. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P22 order dated 09.07.2019 of the 2nd respondent District Collector; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to take steps to assign 2 Acres of land comprised in Re.Sy.No.59/14 of Mangalam Village, as sought for in Ext.P15 representation dated 19.10.2017 made by the petitioner, along with other legal heirs of the deceased Sainaba, before the 2nd respondent.

2. On 09.08.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent Tahsildar, Tirur, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of the counter affidavit read thus;

    “3. It is submitted that the land in question comprised in Survey No.59/14 having an extent of 80.97 Ares (2 Acres) of land in Mangalam Village in Tirur Taluk is included in the revenue records as Puzha puramboke. True copy of the settlement register pertaining to the property is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R3(a). Moreover, a true copy of the report regarding the nature of the land prepared by the Village Officer is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R3(b). The above said land was leased, in condition of permissive possession, to Smt. Sainabha, Puthiyakath Kinattingal, the deceased mother of the petitioner for agricultural purpose as per Rule 15(1) of Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. The legal heirs including the petitioner had renewed the lease up to 2013. Thereafter, the same was not renewed. In 2014 the said land was proposed for a Government project named 'Zero Land Less Kerala' for the purpose of distributing land to landless people. For the above purpose, the said land was taken into possession by the Village Officer, Mangalam on the basis of the direction of the Tahsildar after terminating the permissive possession of the lease holder. Since 2013 the land is Revenue Puramboke in revenue records and the Tahsildar is being conducted auction for usufructs pertaining to the property.

4. the, the petitioner and others submitted a representation before the District Collector, Malappuram for assigning the land on 19.10.2017. Meantime, the petitioner also approached before this Hon'ble Court seeking a direction to take steps to assign the land in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased mother. The Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.37780/17 dated 24.11.2017 directed the 2nd respondent, i.e., the District Collector, Malappuram to consider and pass orders on representation submitted by the petitioner within the period of two months. The Deputy Collector (LR), Malappuram heard the petitioner on 30.01.2018 on behalf of the District Collector and recorded a statement. In pursuant to hearing the 3rd respondent had submitted a detailed report before the District Collector, Malappu8ram that all the heirs of Smt. Sainabha have good financial condition and they have owned land in their villages and one of them is working in abroad and all of them are in sound economic position. The availability of public land has been shrinking over in our State and the assignment is possible only for the residential purposes to those who are landless people. Now a days the Government have a strategic policy for the assignment of public land for landless people mainly for residential purposes.

5. It is submitted that after considering all above elements the District Collector, Malappuram had rejected the representation of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the decision of the District Collector, Malapuram, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition (C) No.4070

      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