High Court of Kerala dismissed writ petitions filed by room occupants challenging a Panchayath’s demand for monthly rent. Ruling that the Panchayath holds vested rights for management and control, the Court upheld the demand despite questions regarding full land transfer.
Petitioners directed to pay the claimed amount within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932
WP(C).No. 9263 of 2010(G)
-------------------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------------
T.EVARIOS, S/O.TOBIAS, KOTTAPPURATHU VEEDU, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL.
RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. SASTHAMCOTTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SASTHAMCOTTA P.O, KUNNATHUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE, R3 BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER, SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NOS. 10492/2010 AND 11296/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C). NO.9263/2010-G:
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.3044/1996.
EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD. 19/04/2006.
EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUR TO VACATE THE BUILDING.
EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.16822/2007.
EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 06/03/2010.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE PANCHAYATH THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE GRANTED PERMISSION TO OCCUPY THE PREMISES AFTER PAYING RENT DTD. 30/07/2002.
EXT.R3.B: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 29/03/1988.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
Prv.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) Nos.9263, 10492 & 11296 OF 2010
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
These writ petitions are filed by the persons occupying
rooms in a building which, according to the petitioners, is in a revenue puramboke land. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action taken by the Panchayath to claim monthly rent from them.
W.P.(C) No.9263/10 & conn. cases
2
agreement with the Government, copy of which is produced as Exhibit R3(b). Thereafter a loan of Rs.2 lakhs was sanctioned by the Government for the construction of Shopping Centre. It is, therefore, pointed out that the Panchayath is having the right for proper maintenance, management and control of the land and building and only in exercise of the said right, the Panchayath has demanded payment of rent from the petitioners. It is also
W.P.(C) No.9263/10 & conn. cases
3
submitted that the parties have separately executed agreements with the Panchayath for the rental arrangement and in that view of the matter, they cannot take a stand that the Panchayath cannot demand any rent from the occupiers concerned.
stand of the Panchayath in the counter affidavit cannot be accepted in the light of the explicit stand taken by the Panchayath in the earlier writ petition which was disposed of by Exhibit P4 judgment wherein the Panchayath had stated before this Court that the land is vested with the Government. Therefore it is submitted that now they are estopped from demanding rent. It is therefore submitted that the Panchayath cannot take a different stand in these proceedings and the petitioners want only a proper quietus to the issue and they are not averse to the idea of paying money to the Government also.
W.P.(C) No.9263/10 & conn. cases 4
Puramboke land of 10 Acres and 98 cents is vested with the Panchayath in view of Section 221 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act. This Court did not go into the dispute regarding the question of fact and ultimately directed the Government to look into the matter. Exhibit P2 is the consequential order issued by the Government later.
W.P.(C) No.9263/10 & conn. cases 5
management, it was well within their rights to induct tenants. Evidently, they had control of the market area which right has been recognised by the Government in Exhibit P2. It cannot be disputed that in exercise of the said power only they have inducted the tenants.
W.P.(C) No.9263/10 & conn. cases
6
proceeding with the steps also. Notices were quashed for violation of principles of natural justice only.
In that view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with the demands raised by the Panchayath towards monthly rent. Therefore, these writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. If the petitioners have got any dispute with respect to the quantum of rent claimed by the Panchayath, it will be open to them to file appropriate objections with regard to the same. The petitioners will pay the amount covered by the notices produced in these writ petitions within a period of one month. No costs.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE
smp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Panchayath is entitled to demand monthly rent from occupants of the premises considering the limitation on land ownership and management rights.
Whether the petitioners can challenge the rent demand by citing prior judgments that held the land did not vest with the Panchayath.
T. Evarios
State of Kerala
Director of Panchayath, Thiruvananthapuram
Sasthamcotta Grama Panchayath
T.R. Ramachandran Nair
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
