Long-term licensees may retain land rights if their continued possession aligns with governmental purposes, particularly in environmental conservation.

J U D G M E N T

~~~~~~~~~~~

C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J.

The Government of Kerala acquired 5 chain belt of land (around 5 acres in extent) from one Sri.Ayyappan Pillai in the year 1961 to protect the Neyyar Dam as the land is adjoining the dam. Even after acquisition of the land, Government entrusted the land to the previous owner namely Sri.Ayyappan Pillai to cultivate rubber and other soil binding trees to prevent soil erosion which in turn is intended to prevent silting of the dam. Sri.Ayyappan Pillai though developed and planted trees in terms of the licence arrangements, he constructed a temple in the land which attracted the appellant-Ashram to set up a yoga training centre there. As of now, the appellant is an established centre, where Indians and Foreigners are given yoga training and teaching. The organisation is under the management of the appellant-Ashram. The Government vide Ext.P8 dated 15.10.2010 proposed to resume the land from the appellant for auctioning the right to take usufructs from the W.A.No.242/2011 2 coconuts and rubber trees planted and maintained by the appellant. It is against this order, the appellant filed W.P.(C) challenging the same before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, however, held that since the land belongs to the Government, the Government is entitled to resume the same from the appellant, but without mentioning, the appellant's entitlement for any compensation for the developments and the planting done by them, namely, the improvements. The appellant has also constructed retention wall for protecting the property and to prevent soil erosion from the land. Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant for direction to respondents to allow appellant to retain possession on payment of value of usufructs.

2. During preliminary hearing of the Writ Appeal, we felt that Government's purpose to collect usufructs could be achieved by directing the appellant to pay value of usufructs in the form of licence fee. We, therefore, directed the Government Pleader to get the estimated vale of net yield available from the property. Accordingly, valuation report from Agricultural Officer is submitted stating that average net income from the property will be around Rs.1,27,988/-. Since we have granted stay against W.A.No.242/2011 3 repossession of the land as a condition for the same, we directed the appellant to remit at the rate of Rs.1,30,000/- for 2010, 2011 and also for the first half of 2012, which are already remitted by the appellant.

3. We have now heard the learned senior counsel, Sri.S.Sreekumar, appearing for the appellant and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents. The only question to be considered is whether the appellant would be allowed to continue the licence rights granted by the Government on payment of the annual income from the property fixed by the Agricultural officer. The Government Pleader appearing for the respondents opposed the prayer of the appellant by saying that if the Government auctions the usufructs, it may fetch higher income annually. The counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, submitted that the appellant has been in possession and enjoyment of the property for the last 5 decades and the directions issued by the Government, that is, to protect soil erosion from the property to prevent silting of the dam is achieved. Further, the land was entrusted by the Government without any mention as to whether it will be W.A.No.242/2011 4 resumed by the Government. The appellant's counsel also submitted that the appellant is willing to remit the annual income fixed by the Agricultural Officer periodically without any default as a condition for retaining possession.

4. After hearing both sides, we feel the purpose of resumption by the Government which is to sell right to collect usufructs can be ensured by allowing the appellant to retain the land as a licencee on condition of payment of value of usufructs as annual licence fee periodically to be re