J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,87,532/- being arrears of lease rent in respect of two cents of property comprised in Sy.No.1251 of Mattanchery Village, which was under lease to the predecessor in interest of the petitioner.

2. The District Collector, Ernakulam, by Ext.P6 order, had considered the objections taken by the petitioner and had confirmed the demand for payment of lease rent against the petitioner. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Land Revenue was also rejected by Ext.P7 order. A petition filed by the petitioner before the Government was rejected by Ext.P9 finding that no revision was maintainable. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the above writ petition.

3. The matter was argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, it was not disputed that the two cents of property, which is presently in the possession of the petitioner, is government land and the same had been mentioned as Government land in Exts.P1 and P2 documents under which the petitioner obtained title of the neighbouring land and the possession of the land having an extent of two cents in Sy.No.1251 of Mattanchery Village.

4. When the petitioner approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C)No.12392 of 2012, the same was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment directing the authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner on the basis of which the claim of the petitioner was considered and Ext.P6 order was issued.

5. When this matter is taken up for consideration today, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the land has been in the possession of the petitioner/his predecessor in interest for more than fifty years and no useful purpose would be served by retaining the said land as Government land. It is submitted that, in such circumstances, the claim of the petitioner for assignment may be directed to be considered by the competent authority, in accordance with the law.

6. The learned Government Pleader submits that the claim of the petitioner for assignment can be considered only in terms of the Rules for Assignment of Land within Municipal and Corporation Areas Rules, 1995. It is submitted that, in terms of Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules, the assignment of land can be considered provided the extent of land sought to be assigned is less than five cents in municipal areas and is less than three cents in corporation areas and upon payment of land value at market rate. It is also pointed out that, by virtue of the provisions contained in Sub Rule (2) of Rule 5, where the land is held under an existing lease, lease rent, if any, outstanding against such land should be cleared by the petitioner before issuing any orders regarding assignment of the land.

7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and having regard to the provisions of Rule 5 of the Assignment of Land within Municipal and Corporation Areas Rules, 1995 and having perused Exts.P6 and P7 orders, I am of the view that the claim of the petitioner for assignment can be considered in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules, since the extent of land, in respect of which assignment is now sought, is only two cents. The provisions of Rule 5 also indicate that, even where Government land is held under a lease, the lessee may apply for assignment of the land, subject to the compliance of the provisions contained in the Rules. Sub Rule (2) of Rule 5 makes it clear that, before issuing orders on the application for assignment, the lessee must remit any arrears of lease rent.

8. Taking into consideration the above, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing the first respondent (D