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
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;
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
Varkey Abraham v. The Secretary to Government and others
Legal Representatives and Others v. District Collector, Chittoor District and Others
Abdul Rahim C.A. v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others
Sarvepalli Ramaiah v. District Collector, Chittoor District
M.C. Mehta (Badkhal and Surajkund Lakes Matter) v. Union of India
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.