Disposed

Oonhilot Nanu v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jun 2012WP(C)/2116/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner claimed assignment of 3 cents of land based on a 2005 decision. The Court held that a 2011 Government Order restricting commercial assignment could not apply to this prior decision. The Panchayat's rejection of regularization was upheld as land was not assigned. The Court directed authorities to pass final assignment orders within three months and kept regularization proceedings in

What did the court decide?

Directs Respondents 1-3 to pass final orders on land assignment application within three months; directs Panchayat to keep regularization proceedings in abeyance pending such orders.

Oonhilot Nanu Vs the State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/21ST JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 2116 of 2012 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

OONHILOT NANU, S/O.KUNHICHEKKAN, OONHILOT HOUSE, P.O.KUNNAMANGALAM KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA

¶11

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT

¶12

GOVERNMENT SECRETARIRAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695001.

¶13

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOZHIKODE-673001.

¶14

3. THE TAHSILDAR KOZHIKODE-673001.

¶15

4. KUNNAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, P.O.KUNNAMANGALM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673571

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSUF BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.MOHAMMED SHAFI

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No. 2116 of 2012 (L)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P1:-	COPY OF THE LEASE DATED FROM 01.041980 TO 31.03.1981 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKKODE.
EXT.P2:-	COPY OF THE PATTA ISSUED TO SMT.T.K.KUNHAMMA UMMA.
EXT.P3:-	COPY OF THE SITE PLAN.
EXT.P4:-	COPY OF THE STATEMENT ALONG WITH RECEIPTS DATED 15.07.01997, 26.03.2010 AND RECEIPT DATED 20.12.2011.
EXT.P5:-	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.11.2004 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR ASSIGNMENT OF THE LAND.
EXT.P6:-	COPY OF AN EXTRACT OF THE REPORT DATED 21.06.2005.
EXT.P7:-	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.10.2005 OF THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
EXT.P8:-	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.12.2005 OF THE TAHSILDAR TO THE VILLAGE OFICER.
EXT.P9:-	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.03.2006.
EXT.P10:-	COPY OF THE NOTICE AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER RULE 12 (1) OF KERALA LAND ASSIGNMENT RULES.
EXT.P11:-	COPY OF THE SCHEDULE TO NOTIFICATION.
EXT.P12:-	COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 27.10.2011.
EXT.P13:-	COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY TO KUNNAMANGALAM.
EXT.P14:-	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.10.2011.
EXT.P15:-	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2011.
EXT.P16:-	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2012.
EXT.P17:-	COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT.
EXT.P18:-	COPY OF THE TAXT RECEIPT.
EXT.P19:-	COPY OF LETTER FROM THE PANCHAYAT DATED 31.03.2012.

(Contd....2/-)

-2-

WP(C).No. 2116 of 2012 (L)

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶28

EXT.R4(A):COPY OF THE FORM DATED 07.01.2012.

¶29

EXT.R4(B):COPY OF THE SERVICE PLAN.

¶30

EXT.R4(C):COPY OF THE SIGHT PLAN. EXT.R4(D):COPY OF THE SAID RESOLUTION DATED 20.10.2011.

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶35

W.P.(C).2116/2012

¶36

.............................................. Dated this the 11^th day of June, 2012

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Petitioner says that he is in possession and occupation

¶39

of 3 cents of revenue puramboke land comprised in R.S.No.496/8 of Kunnamangalam Village. According to him, he has been in occupation of the land since 1970 and by Ext.P1 proceedings of the Tahsildar, Kozhikode, issued in 1980, he was permitted to temporarily occupy the land for non agricultural purposes. According to the petitioner the lease permit was renewed thereafter periodically. In the meantime petitioner made an application to the respondents for assignment of the land. It appears that the Government called for a report from the District Collector and according to the petitioner, the report was in his favour. Finally, by Ext.P7 proceedings of the Principal Secretary to the Government dated 26.10.05, the District Collector was directed to submit a proposal through the Land Revenue Commissioner for assignment of the land to the petitioner levying market value from him. It is also seen from Exts.P8 and P9 that further proceedings pursuance to Ext.P7 were taken by the Tahsildar

¶40

W.P.(C).2116/12

¶41

¶42

also. Ext.P10 shows that proposing to assign the land, notice under Rule 12 of the Land Assignment Rules was also published. According to the petitioner, in the meantime he constructed the structure with the permission of the Panchayat, which claim of the petitioner is denied by the Panchayat.

¶43

Be that as it may, petitioner made an application for regularization of the construction as well. That request of the petitioner for regularization of the construction was turned down by the Panchayat by Ext.P15 proceedings, where it is stated that the land in question is a puramboke land and therefore the application cannot be considered. It was in such circumstances the writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P15 and requiring the respondents to assign 3 cents of land in R.S.496/8 of Kunnamangalam Village to the petitioner.

¶44

The Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit justifying Ext.P15. They also say that the land in question is situated in a prime locality and is needed for development project.

¶45

W.P.(C).2116/12

¶46

¶47

On behalf of the third respondent, a statement has been filed, where it is stated thus:-

¶48

“In this regard it is submitted that as per G.O.(Ms).No.280/11/RD dated 27.7.2011 it is not permitted to assign the land for commercial purpose. In fact the land can only be assigned for residential purpose. As per the above mentioned Government Order;

¶49

(1). The land assignment of Patta (registry) will be only to the landless and for self housing. (2). All assignment except those made to the landless as eligible under KLA Act for personal housing will be on lease basis.

¶50

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat.

¶51

There are two issues in this writ petition. One is regarding the claim of the petitioner for assignment of 3 cents of land comprised in R.S.No.496/8 of Kunnamangalam Village and the other one is the correctness of Ext.P15 order passed by the Panchayat rejecting an application made by the petitioner for regularization of the construction and both these issues are connected to each other.

¶52

W.P.(C).2116/12

¶53

¶54

Admittedly, petitioner sought assignment of the land and Ext.P6 report of the Collector to the Government, Ext.P7 whereby the Principal Secretary to the Government directed the Collector to submit a proposal for assignment of the land to the petitioner through the Land Revenue Commissioner, further actions taken by the Tahsildar as per Exts.P8 and P9 and P10 notice issued under Rule 12(1) of the Land Assignment Rules testify this fact. There is no record whatsoever disclosing that any further action in the matter has been taken by anyone of the authorities.

¶55

This therefore, shows that no final order has been passed by the Government or the authority under the Land Assignment Act, on the application made by the petitioner, for the assignment of 3 cents of land in his possession.

¶56

However, in the statement filed before this Court, the stand taken by the third respondent is that in view of the provisions contained in G.O.(Ms).No.280/11/RD dated 27.7.2011, it is not possible to assign the land for commercial purposes, and that the land can be assigned only for

¶57

W.P.(C).2116/12

¶58

¶59

residential purposes. Insofar as this contention is concerned, the question which is to be considered is whether the provisions of the Government Order referred to above, could be pressed into service against the petitioner. As already seen the communication issued by the Government in 2005 itself discloses that a decision was already taken to assign the land in question to the petitioner. All that remained was that a formal proposal was called for and the procedure prescribed under the Land Assignment Act were to be completed. Since a decision to assign the land was already taken in 2005, I am of the view that the Government order of 2011 cannot be taken into account against the petitioner and final orders on the application will have to be issued, with reference to Exts.P6 to P9 referred to above.

¶60

As far as Ext.P15 order issued by the Panchayat is concerned, as at present, the land is not assigned to the petitioner and therefore, the land remains, a revenue puramboke. If, in such a place, a construction was made, Panchayat cannot, in the absence of an assignment in favour of the person who has constructed the building, be expected

¶61

W.P.(C).2116/12

¶62

¶63

to regularize the construction. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Panchayat declining to regularize the construction in question cannot be faulted, at least, at this stage.

¶64

However, having regard to the fact that final orders on the application for assignment is still awaited, the Panchayat should not take any further action in pursuance to Ext.P15 and further orders, if any, required should be passed by the Panchayat, depending upon the nature of the final order on the assignment application, issued by the Government.

¶65

In that view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions.

¶66

Respondents 1 to 3 shall pass final orders on the application made by the petitioner for assignment of 3 cents of land in R.S.496/8 of Kunnamangalam Village in pursuance to Exts.P6 to P9. This they shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, I direct that further

¶67

W.P.(C).2116/12

¶68

¶69

proceedings pursuance to Ext.P15 will be kept in abeyance and depending upon the orders to be passed by respondents 1 to 3, Ext.P15 will be reviewed or revised and fresh orders in the matter if necessary, will be issued. This shall be subject to the condition that the petitioner shall clear the arrears if any, and shall continue to pay the amounts that are due from him for the occupation of the land in question.

¶70

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶71

mrcs

¶72

/true copy/ PA To Judge

Oonhilot Nanu v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oonhilot Nanu v. the 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

Kalloorkad Grama Panchayath Vs M/S. Kalloorkad Merchants Association

Chandrasekharan Nair Vs the State of Kerala

Raveendran Pillai Vs West Kallada Grama Panchayath

P.N. Rajeev @ P.N. Reji Vs M/S. Deltech

Pushpalatha Vs Sri.Velappan Nadar, Secretary, Karode Gr

P.M.Poulose Vs the District Collector