Petitioners, shop owners occupying Government land without permission, challenged eviction following directions to execute lease agreements on alternative land. The court held they had no vested right to remain due to non-compliance, dismissing the writ petition.
No relief granted. Writ petition dismissed.
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 K.HARILAL
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1937
WP(C).No. 24961 of 2012 (U)
PETITIONER(S):
1. GURUVAPPA, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.CHUKRA, RESIDING AT AJILADKA, ENMAKAJE VILLAGE, P.O.PERLA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 671 552.
2. N.DEVAPPA NAIK, AGED 48 YEARS, NADUMANE, NALKA, P.O.PERLA , ENMAKAJE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 671 552.
3. MOHAMMED KUNHI, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.HASSAINAR, RESIDING AT KUREADKA, P.O.PERLA, ENMAKAJE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 671 552.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 039.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, VIDHYANAGAR, P.O.VIDHYANAGAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 123.
3. THE TAHSILDAR, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 671 121.
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ENMAKAJE VILLAGE, P.O.PERLA-671 552.
5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS SECTION, PWD, BADIADKA.P.O KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 541.
6. THE ENKAKAJE GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O.PERLA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 671 552.
7. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BADIADKA POLICE STATION, P.O.BADIADKA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 541.
R1-R5,R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.J.MICHAEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-112015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 24961 of 2012 (U)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
OKB
True copy
P.A. to Judge
K.HARILAL, J.
W.P.(C) No.24961 of 2012
Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2015.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are petty shop owners in Perla town in Kasaragod. Their shops are situated on the side of the PWD road and they put up the same on the Government land, without any permission of the authorities concerned. While so, the respondents initiated proceedings to evict them from the Government land. Aggrieved by the eviction proceedings, they approached this Court by filing O.P.No.8123/97 and this Court disposed of the said O.P. directing the 2nd respondent District Collector to take appropriate action on the representation filed by them. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P3 order stating that the claim for assignment is not justified as they have encroached upon the Government land. If they submit applications in format observing the provisions of the Act and Rules for assigning AW land, not required for public purpose
WP(C).24961/12-U :2:
and suitable for rehabilitation, would be considered and processed expeditiously. Meanwhile, the occupied land could be given to the petitioners, on lease, for three years, renewable for further periods, till suitable land could be assigned to them. The Village Officer should submit the lease proposals within 14 days. If the petitioners reluctant to possess the land on lease, the Tahsildar, Kasaragod will observe the provisions of the KLC Act and Rules. The grievance of
the petitioners is that, in spite of the direction in Ext.P3 granting leasehold to the petitioners, the respondents proceeded in derogation of the said order and evicted them from the place which they have occupied. Hence the petitioners prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the respondents, to restore the petty shops occupied by the petitioners, in their original position, at their own costs.
WP(C).24961/12-U :3:
in this writ petition.
WP(C).24961/12-U :4:
for three years, till suitable land could be assigned to them. But, the petitioners have no case that they have complied with the said direction issued by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned Government Pleader, it could be reasonably presumed that the petitioners have not complied with the directions in Ext.P3. If that be so, as per Ext.P3 itself they are liable to be evicted from the Government land and they have no right to claim that they are not liable to be evicted from the Government land.
In the above view, I find that there is no circumstance warranting interference under the writ jurisdiction and the petitioners have failed to establish their vested right to continue there. In the absence of any vested right, no restoration can be allowed in favour of the petitioners. This writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed accordingly.
K. HARILAL, JUDGE
okb.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners have a vested right to continue occupying Government land without permission despite directions for lease execution on alternative land.
Whether eviction of petitioners from Government land was justified due to non-compliance with directions to execute lease agreements.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
GURUVAPPA
N.DEVAPPA NAIK
MOHAMMED KUNHI
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD DISTRICt
THE TAHSILDAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT
K.HARILAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
