The court ruled that administrative demands must align with prior approvals and cannot be unilaterally altered without justification.

JUDGMENT :

(SYAM KUMAR V.M., J.)

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs :

“(i) quash Exts.P6 and P7 orders by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order of direction ;

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to hold that the petitioner has cleared all the arrears of rent and to assign the property in question under the Assignment of Land within the Municipal and Corporation Area Rules, 1995 ;

(iii) issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Land having an extent of 13.5 cents situated within Kollam town had been leased out to the petitioner's predecessors by the erstwhile Travancore- Cochin State in 1949. A petrol pump was being conducted on the said land. The said lease was being renewed and extended from time to time by the Government of Kerala. In the year 1989, when the lease rent was drastically increased by the Government vide Ext.P1 order, the petitioner’s father challenged the same before this Court. This Court vide Ext.P2 judgment dated 19.10.2000 disposed of the Original Petition inter alia directing the Government to reconsider the basis for fixing the rent and also directed the Government to consider the fixation of lease rent from 1973 till date afresh with notice and opportunity to the petitioner. The Government was also directed by this Court to consider the question of assignment of land to the petitioner if the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.5,50,000/-. Petitioner remitted the amount of Rs.5,50,000/- albeit with delay. The Government refused to consider the matter on merits citing the delay in remitting the amount as a reason. Another round of litigation followed. Exts.P4 and P5 judgments were rendered by this Court, whereby the Government was directed to reconsider the matter upon the petitioner remitting an amount of Rs.15 lakhs. The said amount of Rs.15 lakhs was also remitted by the petitioner on 17.08.2012. In the hearing that followed, the Government demanded that the question of assignment of land to the petitioner could be considered only if the petitioner cleared the entire arrears of rent up to 2012. The 3^rd respondent Tahsildar was directed to make a fresh assessment and it was reported by the 3^rd respondent that an amount of Rs.8,51,571/- was due from the petitioner. This amount was approved by the Government as reflected in Ext.P6 Government Order. Petitioner remitted the amount of Rs.8,51,571/- demanded on 08.05.2013. Thus the entire arrears of rent from 1973- 74 to 2012-13 had been cleared by the petitioner as demanded by the Government. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued withExt.P7 notice calling upon him to remit an amount of Rs.15,39,106/- purportedly towards lease rent till 31.03.2013. Petitioner then filed this W.P.(C) seeking to quash Exts.P6 and P7.

3. Counter affidavits were filed by the 1^st and 3^rd respondents. It had been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent that some inadvertent omission had crept into the calculations made in both Exts.P6 and P7 and that the total lease rent payable by the petitioner was an amount of Rs.21,73,864/-. The 1st respondent in its counter affidavit has inter alia stated that the Government never intended to assign the land to the petitioner in view of the prime importance of the land for public purpose. It is further stated therein that the lease rent payable from time to time will be fixed by the Government as per Rule 12 (5) of the Assignment of Land within Municipal and Corporation Areas Rules, 1995 and that the petitioner had violated the rent agreement by alienating some portion of the leased land without prior permission of the Government and hence he has no claim even for the lease extension. However, renewal of lease had been granted as perExt.P6 G.O.

4. While so, the petitioner was not inclined to continue