Allowed

Velayudhan Pillai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Oct 2008OP/32648/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging revision of annual rent on Kuthakapattom land. Court held that though rules are applicable to municipal area land, Ext.P2 order was invalid for being passed without notice to petitioner. Petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Original petition allowed. Ext.P2 order set aside. District Collector directed to issue fresh notice and pass order on determination of lease rent within six months.

Velayudhan Pillai Vs State of Kerala — Execution and Attachment | 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. 32648 of 2000(J)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

1. VELAYUDHAN PILLAI MADHAVAN PILLAI, SARADA MANDIRAM, PUNALUR 691 305.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER

¶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. DIRECT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM

¶16

4. TAHSILDAR, PATHANAPURAM TALUK OFFICE PUNALUR.

¶17

5. VILLAGE OFFICER, PUNALUR.

¶18

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SREELATHA

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER ON CMP. 55748/2000 IN OP. NO.32648/2000

¶21

DISMISSED

¶22

3.10.2008

¶23

SD/- V.GIRI, JUDGE

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶26

P1:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO. 40 IN BOOK NO.330 DT. 7.1.1985 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR RECEIPT OF KUTHAKAPATTOM.

¶27

P1(a):- COPY OF THE RECEIPT NBO.79 IN BOOK NO.398 DT. 16.1.1987 FOR PAYMENT OF KUTHAKAPATTOM.

¶28

P1(b):- COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.60 IN BOOK NO.655 DT 22.12.99 FOR PAYMENT OF KUTHAKAPATTOM.

¶29

P2:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS WITH NUMBER 23660/2000/K.DIS DT. 11.7.2000 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶30

P3:- COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.2877/2000 DT. 2.11.2000 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶31

P4:- COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT OF LAND WITHIN MUNICIPAL AND CORPORATION AREAS RULES 1995.

¶32

P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 15.12.99 ON CMP. NO.53698/99 IN OP. NO.31590/99 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

/ TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

tss

V. GIRI, J.

OP.NO. 32648 of 2000

Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008.

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

The petitioner claims to be a lessee by way of kutthakapatttom of 19 cents in Sy.No.445/1/155 of Punalur Village. The petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property and while so, the District Collector issued Ext.P2 proceedings stated to be under the Assignment of Land within the Municipal and Corporation Areas Rules 1995 revising the annual rent payable in respect of the property in the possession of the petitioner with retrospective effect from 1985. This has been challenged by the petitioner.

¶41

There is a contention that since the lease was originally under the Kuthakapattom Rules, there cannot be a revision of rules under Ext.P2.

¶42

Ext.P4 rules comprehends all the lands within the Municipal and Corporation Area. Assignment has been defined under Rule 2(c) to include transfer of land by lease or grant of licence for use of land. Since the land in possession of the

¶43

OP.32648 /2000 2

¶44

petitioner is within Punalur Municipal area, the Rules are applicable as such.

¶45

But Ext.P2 order has been passed without notice to the petitioner. More over, if the fixation of the lease rent is on the basis of the market value of the property, then naturally the petitioner is entitled to be heard before fixation of the market value. That is a matter for enquiry and determination. But in the present case Ext.P2 has been issued without notice to the petitioner and without hearing. Accordingly, the original petition is allowed. Ext.P2 order is set aside. The District Collector shall issue fresh notice to the petitioner and thereafter an order shall be passed as regards determination of the lease rent of the property covered by Ext.P2. The process may be completed within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶46

V. GIRI, JUDGE.

¶47

Pmn/

¶48

OP.32648 /2000 3

Velayudhan Pillai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Velayudhan Pillai 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

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

Alexander J.Anthraper Vs State of Kerala