Dismissed

All Kerala Document Writers&Scribes Assn v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jan 2012WP(C)/19537/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition by an association of document writers challenging the enhancement of lease rent for government land. The court held that the relevant Government Order cited by the petitioner did not apply to Panchayath areas and the state has the policy discretion to fix rent.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was advised to agitate the grievance before the Government.

All Kerala Document Writers&Scribes Assn Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/28TH POUSHA 1933

¶5

WPC.No. 19537 of 2005 (A)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER : -

¶8

ALL KERALA DOCUMENT WRITERS & SCRIBES ASSOCIATION, REGD. NO.96/77, TRIVANDRUM REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, S.KRISHNASWAMY PILLAI.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS : -

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶12

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

¶13

3. THE TAHSILDAR, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

R1-R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LILLY LESLIE

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WPC.No. 19537 of 2005 (A)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT P1 :	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.10.2002 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
EXT P2 :	COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 22.01.2003.
EXT P3 :	COPY OF COMMUNICATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT DATED 31.1.2003.
EXT P4 :	COPY OF REPRESENTATION ON 04.03.2004.
EXT P5 :	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.9.2004 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXT P6 :	COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.10.2004 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT P7 :	COPY OF LETTER DATED 27.12.2004 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXT P8 :	COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS FIXING THE LAND VALUE AND RATE OF RENT DATED 8.10.2002.
EXT P9 :	COPY OF RULES ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DATED 18.5.2004.
EXT P10 :	COPY OF NOTICE DATED 31.05.05 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

DMR/-

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,J.

¶25

W.P. (c) NO. 19537 of 2005

¶26

Dated this the 18^th day of January, 2012

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The petitioner, who is an association of document writers and scribes, has approached this Court seeking to set aside Exhibits P5, P7, P8 and P10, which relate to enhancement of 'lease rent' in respect of the land covered by the lease deed executed in favour of the said association. Grievance of the petitioner is that there is absolutely no rationale in bringing about such exorbitant enhancement without any regard to the actual facts and figures.

¶29

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit pointing out the actual facts and figures. It is stated that the enhancement was brought about as per the orders issued by the District Collector by Exhibit P8 dated 8/10/2002. This is in tune with the contents of the relevant G.Os issued by the Government, to have the lease rent fixed, based on the actual 'market value'. It is also stated that, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner that the enhancement has been ordered based on G.O. P566/95/RD dated 13.11.1995 is not

¶30

W.P. (c) NO. 19537 of 2005 2

¶31

correct, as clarified in Exhibit P5 letter issued by the District Collector on 25.09.04. As a matter of fact, the enhancement has been ordered re-fixing the lease rent, in conformity with the G.O. No: 222/94/RD dated 4/5/1994 and the G.O. No : 1025/85/RD dated 19/12/85, as shown in Exhibit P5 and further in paragraph five of the counter affidavit. It is also stated that the relief sought for by petitioner placing reliance on Exhibit P9 G.O No. 126/2004/RD dated 14/05/04 is quite wrong and mis-conceived, since the said G.O. confines the applicability in respect of a property situated in Corporation / Municipal Corporation area, while the property in question, alloted to the petitioner's Association is situated in a Panchayath area and hence it is not applicable.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that many a representation has been preferred by the petitioner before the Government pointing out the loss and hardships being caused to the members of the petitioner's Association. It is also stated that the petitioner has constructed a building in the concerned property and that the said building

¶33

W.P. (c) NO. 19537 of 2005 3

¶34

and premises are being used mainly by the general public who came to avail the service and as such the Government ought to have entertained the request, reducing the rate of lease rent. It is also pointed out that, even in respect of land situated in Corporation / Municipal area, the rate of lease rent is only 10 % of the property value, whereas in the case of the

¶35

property situated in a Panchayath area, it is fixed at 15%, which is arbitrary and illegal and hence is under challenge.

¶36

The learned Government Pleader appearing for

¶37

the respondents reiterated the contents in the relevant proceedings issued by the District Collector and also those in the counter affidavit.

¶38

After hearing both sides, this Court finds that the relief sought for, based on Exhibit P9 Government order, to

¶39

have the lease rent reduced to such extent as declared therein, does not deserve to be considered, for the obvious reason that, Exhibit P9 does not pertain to an area situated in a Panchayath and that the same is applicable only in respect of the areas situated in Corporation / Municipal limits. Further,

¶40

W.P. (c) NO. 19537 of 2005 4

¶41

fixation of lease rent in respect of lands belonging to the Government, is of course within the liberty of the State and more as a matter of policy, to be applied in a uniform manner and payable by the beneficiary concerned without any such discrimination. That apart, the respondents have made it clear as per Exhibit P5, that the fixation of the lease rent is not based on the contents of G.O. P. 566/95/RD dated 13.11.1995 as alleged by the petitioner, but based on the other G.O dated 4/5/94 and 19/12/1985 as mentioned herein before. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the said G.Os and this being the decision, the challenge raised against Exhibit P8 order passed by the District Collector, based on the aforesaid G.Os, fails.

¶42

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, inspite of bringing the grievance to the notice of the Government, particularly that, no specific G.O has been issued in respect of Panchayath areas, as Exhibit P9 (pertaining to areas in Corporation /Municipal corporation), this Court finds that it is a matter for the petitioner to agitate

¶43

W.P. (c) NO. 19537 of 2005 5

¶44

before the Government, seeking for appropriate reliefs, moulding the grievances in an appropriate manner. With the above observation, inference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioner to pursue the matter before the Government as aforesaid.

¶45

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶46

DMR /-

All Kerala Document Writers&Scribes Assn v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

All Kerala Document Writers&Scribes Assn 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

P.Ayyappan Vs Nivedida P.Haran and Others

P.M.Jacob Vs v.Jayaprakash

Sri.Pradeepkumar Vs the Rta,Kozhikode and Another

Sathyan Vs State of Kerala

Babu Vadakkedam Vs the K.S.E.Board

M.Nirmala Devi Vs the State of Kerala