Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
E.T.DEVASYA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS – Respondent
WP(C)/23552/2008
Land - Assignment - Kerala Land Assignments Rules - Relevant Sections - The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's request for land assignment was based on incorrect assumptions regarding the needed consent from the Panchayat, thus allowing the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought assignment of land for personal use; several administrative orders rejected the requests based on lack of consent from the local Panchayat, which was later disputed by the petitioner through evidentiary documents proving consent.
Finding of the Court:
The Land Revenue Commissioner's rejection of the assignment was based on a factual inaccuracy regarding the lack of consent from the Panchayat, which had actually approved the assignment prior to the decision.
Issues: Whether the Land Revenue Commissioner's order was justified given the Panchayat's approval of land assignment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the incorrect reliance on a previous Panchayat resolution, which was superseded by a newer resolution granting consent, rendered the rejection of the petitioner's application invalid.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner's revision and directed the assignment of the land to him.
JUDGMENT
The proceedings culminating in Ext.P19 originated from Ext.P8 application made by the petitioner, for the assignment of 164 Sq. Mtrs. of land, which consist of a portion of his building a well and four coconut trees. The application was rejected by Ext.P11 order of the Tahsildar, which was confirmed in the appeal as per Ext.P12. Petitioner carried the matter revision before the Land Revenue Commissioner. The Land Revenue Commissioner also rejected the revision by Ext.P17 order. This order to the extent, its relevant portion reads as under:-
“ The hearing of the case was conducted on
29.3.2008. The revision petitioner was present. He argued that he has no other dwelling place and the land has to be assigned to him.
Since the land in question is 'Puzha puramboke' the consent of Panchayat is necessary for assigning the land. The Thachampara Panchayat has not given any consent so far. So also it is pertinent to note that the puzha puramboke is to be divested before assigning the land.
In this circumstances the revision petition is rejected.”
2. Against Ext.P17, petitioner filed further revision before the Government which was dismissed by Ext.P19 order as not maintainable. It is in these circumstances, writ petition is filed.
3. As far as Ext.P19 order is concerned, admittedly there is no provision for further revision in the Kerala Land Assignments Rules . In that view of the matter, Ext.P19 cannot be said to be illegal for any reason.
4. In so far as, Ext.P17 order of the Land Revenue Commissioner is concerned, reading of the order shows that it is on the basis that the land is a puzha puramboke vested in the Panchayath and that the 6th respondent Panchayath has not consented for its assignment, the revision was dismissed. However, counsel for the petitioner referred to Ext.P16 series of documents. It is seen from Ext.P16 that the Panchayath, had passed resolution No.10(1) dated 29.3.2008, agreeing to the assignment of the land in favour of the petitioner. Further, from the Panchayath's letter dated 15.5.2008, it is also seen that the aforesaid resolution of the Panchayath was forwarded to the Land Revenue Commissioner vide letter dated 10.4.2008. That apart, petitioner also submits that, after the hearing on the revision filed by him, he himself produced Ext.P16 (a) along with the resolution of the Panchayath before the Land Revenue Commissioner on 10.4.2008. It is therefore contended that the assumption on the basis of which, his revision was rejected, was factually incorrect and that the order was passed over looking the resolution of the Panchayath, which was already produced before the Land Revenue Commissioner.
5. From the above, it is evident that the only reason which persuaded the Land Revenue Commissioner to decline the assignment sought for the petitioner was absence of consent of the Panchayath for assignment of the puzha puramboke. That assumption of the Land Revenue Commissioner can be seen factually incorrect as per Ext.P16 series of documents. Although, it is the case of the respondents that such a view has been taken on the basis that on a previous occasion, the Panchayath itself had declined the petitioner's application for assignment, still having regard to the fact that the Ext.P16 resolution has been passed by the Panchayath, the previous resolution of Panchayat could not have been relied on.
6. Now that, the Ext.P16 resolution have been passed by the Panchayath, which has not been withdrawn by so far, I am satisfied that Ext.P17 order cannot be sustained.
7. In the facts as stated, I hold that the revision which resulted in Ext.P17, filed by the petitioner against Ext.P11 and Ext.P12 will stand allowed and the 4th respondent will pass orders, assigning the land mentioned in Ext.P8 to the petitioner.
8. Orders in which shall be passed as expeditiously as possible at any rate within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE
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
