Allowed

Alexander J.Anthraper v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Oct 2008OP/31590/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court addressed the validity of a lease renewal order for Kuthakapattom land within a municipal area, holding that market value determination and a detailed enquiry with notice were mandatory before fixing rent.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P2 order quashed; District Collector directed to issue fresh notice for market value determination and fix annual lease rent within six weeks.

Alexander J.Anthraper Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930

¶5

OP.No. 31590 of 1999(I)

¶6

--------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

----------------------

¶9

ALEXANDER J.ANTHRAPER, 1216, EDINBERS CIRCLE , NEWCUMBERLAND, PA 17070, USA FROM ANTHRAPER BUNGLOW, ANTHRAPER GARDENS CMC-4, VAYALAR EAST, CHERTHALA 688 524, REP.BY HIS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, MRS. OMANA THOMAS, VII/247A, SILVERSAND ISLAND, VYTTILA, COCHIN 682 019.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.K.S.SREEKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

-------------------------

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. COMMISSIONER (LAND REVENUE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.

¶16

4. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA.

¶17

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SREELATHA

¶18

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON 03/10/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER ON CMP. NO.53698/1999 IN OP. NO.31590/1999

¶20

DISMISSED

¶21

3.10.2008 SD/- V.GIRI, JUDGE

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶24

P1:- COPY OF THE KUTHAKAPATTAM GRANT DT. 4.12.1956 TO CLARAMMA ANTHRAPER. P1(a):- COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.59 DT. 28.3.1998 .

¶25

P2:- COPY OF THE RENEWAL OF LEASE. DT. 7.7.99 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶26

P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. NIL MADE BY THE PETITIONER THE PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶27

P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 30.9.99 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 3 TO 2ND RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO PETITIONER.

¶28

P5:- COPY OF THE GO(P) 566/95 DT. 13.11.95 CONTAINING THE RULES FOR ASSIGNMENT OF LAND WITHIN MUNICIPAL AND CORPORATION AREAS, 1995.

/ TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

tss

V. GIRI, J.

OP.NO. 31590 of 1999

Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008.

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioner's predecessor in interest was a beneficiary of Kuthakapattom grant in relation to 40 cents of land in survey No. 51/1 of Vayalar East Village of Cherthala Taluk. According to the petitioner, his predecessor in interest effected valuable improvements in the property. Kuthakapattom was being remitted from time to time. By Ext.P2 order the District Collector effected a renewal of lease and this was objected to by the petitioner in Ext.P3. Though thereafter the petitioner sought for remission of the same, it has not been considered and hence the petitioner challenges Ext.P2.

¶37

The main contention of the petitioner is that the renewal effected under Ext.P2 is illegal because the original demise in favour of the petitioner's predecessor in interest was on Kuthakapattom and therefore renewal of the same should have been governed by the policy of the Kuthakapattom Rules. Ext.P5 Rules deals with the assignment of land within the

¶38

OP.31590 /1999 2

¶39

Municipal and Corporation areas. The land in question is within the Cherthala Municipal area and if that be so, Ext.P5 rules are applicable to the lease of the land in question. But Ext.P2 renewal of the lease was not preceded by the determination of the market value of the land with notice to the petitioner. Huge rent has been determined as lease rent. The basis for the same has not revealed. An order in the nature of Ext.P2 should not have been passed except after a unless detailed enquiry with notice to the affected persons.

¶40

In the result, the original petition is allowed. Ext.P2 order is quashed. The District Collector shall issue fresh notice to the petitioner for determination of the market value of the land in question after hearing the petitioner and thereupon pass an order fixing the annual lease rent for the property in question. It is made clear that this process will be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

V. GIRI, JUDGE.

¶42

Pmn/

¶43

OP.31590 /1999 3

Alexander J.Anthraper v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alexander J.Anthraper v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.N.Sajeevan & Others Vs K.P.S.C.

Sudheer P and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

John.K.J. Vs the Dy.Chief Engineer,Kalpetta,Kseb &Anr

Malankara Catholic Diocese Vs Inspector General of Registrn.

V.J.Antony Vs Sub Divisional Manager Chengalam

Velayudhan Pillai Vs State of Kerala