Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
C. Leela W/o. Chellayya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Muralee Krishna, J.
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent Tahsildar, Devikulam to consider Exts.P2 to P2(h) applications for the assignment of land submitted by the petitioners and assign 0.03 cents of property each in survey No.912 of Kannan Devan Hills Village to the petitioners.
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioners are landless persons. They belong to scheduled caste community, and they are enjoying the possession of 0.03 cents of landed property each in Kannan Devan Hills Village from 1998 onwards. The petitioners have no other land except the small extent of land covered by Ext.P1 certificate issued by the 5th respondent. On 9.4.2004 the petitioners submitted applications for assignment before the 3rd respondent under Rule 11(8) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 , in the prescribed form. But even after the lapse of considerable time, the 3rd respondent did not pass any order on Ext.P2 to P2(h) applications submitted by the petitioners.The petitioners also submitted Ext.P3 to P3(h) applications before the Munnar Grama Panc
The court ruled that the petitioners failed to prove their possession of land and that the authority to assign such land lies with the District Collector under the Kannan Devan Hills Act.
The court ruled that claims for land assignment must adhere to statutory provisions, and existing possession does not confer entitlement under the Kannan Devan Hills Act.
The court ruled that the petitioner failed to establish a legal right over the property, and eviction must follow due process under the Land Conservancy Act.
The court affirmed that only the District Collector has the authority to assign land under the Kannan Devan Hills Act, rendering any patta issued by an unauthorized officer invalid.
The court emphasized that land assignments must adhere to statutory procedures, and unauthorized occupation does not confer legal rights.
A writ of mandamus requires a legal right and statutory duty, and cannot be issued contrary to law.
Under the Kannan Devan Hills Act, mere inclusion in an eligibility list does not confer the right to land assignment without adequate proof of claims, and procedural correctness in rejection must be ....
The court emphasizes the mandatory consideration of land assignment applications under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the right to objection by affected parties.
A writ of certiorari cannot be issued to enforce rights under repealed rules; legal rights must be based on current statutory provisions.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
