Allowed

The City Theatres (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Feb 2016WP(C)/1225/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held that leasehold rights do not extinguish upon lapse unless determined by law. Dismissed eviction attempt via Disaster Management Act. Directing eviction only after lawful lease determination and prohibiting bus bay construction without valid land resumption.

What did the court decide?

Directing no dispossession/eviction without legal procedure; prohibiting bus bay construction unless land is resumed according to law.

The City Theatres (P) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/26TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 1225 of 2016 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

THE CITY THEATRES (P) LTD., NEW THEATRES BUILDING, SUBRAMANIAN ROADM THIRUVANANTHAPURAMM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, S.MURUGAN.

¶8

BY SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADVS. SRI.PAUL JACOB (P) SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL SRI.S.SREEDEV SRI.RONY JOSE SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

4. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶14

5. KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF ENGINEER- 695 001.

¶15

R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.TOM.K.THOMAS R5 BY ADV. SRI.ZAKIR HUSSAIN, S.C

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Msd.

¶18

WP(C).No. 1225 of 2016 (C)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶21

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 20/09/1948 EXECUTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF TRAVANCORE WITH PETITIONER'S FATHER.

¶22

P1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE TYPED COPY OF EXHIBIT-P1.

¶23

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/01/1986 ISSUED BY THE BOARD OF REVENUE.

¶24

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/03/1998 IN O.P.NO.8738/1992.

¶25

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/03/1999 IN O.S.NO.1312/1994.

¶26

P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF LEASE DATED 24/01/1996.

¶27

P6: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 18/03/2001 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶28

P7: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28/05/2001 ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPT.

¶29

P8: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ASSIGNMENT DATED 24/07/2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT.

¶30

P9: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03/01/2002 IN O.P.NO.37558/2001.

¶31

P10: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/12/2005 IN O.P.NO.4031/2002.

¶32

P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/04/2006 NO. G.O(RT) 2411/2006/RD ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶33

P12: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/10/2007 IN W.P.(C).NO.31647/2007.

¶34

P13: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/06/2008 NO. LR T3-36630/2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶35

P14: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶36

P15: A ROUGH LAY OUT PLAN OF THE AREA.

¶37

P16: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS GIVEN IN REVISION FILE NO.1139/41/2009 PENDING BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT.

¶38

WP(C).No. 1225 of 2016 (C)

¶39

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶40

EXHIBIT R3(A) : A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.B1/51405/98. EXHIBIT R3(B): A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER'S ORDER DATED 11.06.2008. EXHIBIT R5(1): TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.2893/2015/DMD DATED 05.06.2015. EXHIBIT R5(2): TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT)NO.4258/2015/DMD DATED 13.08.2015. EXHIBIT R5(3): TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.4464/2015/DMD DATED 20.08.2015. //TRUE COPY//

¶41

P.A.TO JUDGE.

¶42

Msd.

¶43

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶44

================== W.P.(C).No.1225 of 2016

¶45

==================

¶46

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2016

¶47

J U D G M E N T

¶48

The writ petitioner was originally put into possession of 17 cents of land on Kuthakapattom right in Sy. No.2699, 2704 and 2707 of Tycaud village. This appears to have been given to the petitioner as a parking area of their Theatre. The lease was renewed from time to time up to 1978. After the year 1978 the lease was not renewed.

¶49

The Government attempted to resume the land which was

¶50

objected. Finally the Government passed Ext.P 11 order dated

¶51

4.4.2006 . The following is the order.

¶52

“Hence Government order that the 9 cents of Kuthakapattom land in front of the City Theatres compound required for the widening of the road stretching to 26 m be resumed back and the balance land of 8.032 cents will continue in the possession of City Theatres on Kuthakapattom”

¶53

The above order would indicate that the petitioner is in

¶54

possession of 8.032 cents of land and the Government has

¶55

W.P.(C).No.1225 of 2016 - : 2 :-

¶56

resumed only 9 cents of land from the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner using this land as a parking area for the Theatre. The petitioner approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent not to interfere with resumption of 8.032 cents of land.

¶57

In the counter filed by on behalf of the 3^rd respondent, it is submitted that the petitioner fails to renew the Kuthakapattom lease. It is further submitted that the land in question is outside the petitioner's compound wall and now in possession of the Government. It is further submitted that a drainage has been constructed under the disaster management scheme in the area. It is submitted that an attempt is being made to put up a bus bay in this area.

¶58

It is to be noted that the petitioner was in possession of 8.032 cents of land. This was originally based on a lease. It appears that the lease was not renewed but the petitioner's lease hold right will not extinguish unless that right is determined in accordance with the law. No doubt once the lease is determined, the respondents are free to invoke the Land Conservancy Act to

¶59

W.P.(C).No.1225 of 2016 - : 3 :-

¶60

evict the petitioner in accordance with law. The resumption of 8.032 cents of land therefore could be possible only after determining the lease as well as invoking proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act, if the petitioner fails to surrender the land.

¶61

The action of constructing drainage under the Disaster Management Act will not divest any possessory right or any occupancy right of the person. The Disaster Management Act in fact cannot be invoked to divest the possessory right or occupancy right of any person. The scope and purport of the Disaster Management Act is only to facilitate the disaster management and not otherwise. The object of the Disaster Management Act is to work out any scheme or plan in terms of the Disaster Management Act and not related to deciding any question on title or interest in the immovable property. Therefore, whatever action taken under the Disaster Management Act can be only confined to the Disaster Management and not in relation to evicting a person in terms of the Land Conservancy Act. In this case, the action initiated under the Disaster

¶62

W.P.(C).No.1225 of 2016 - : 4 :-

¶63

Management Act is only a construction of a drainage, which is a permitted activity in terms of the relevant provisions of the Disaster Management Act. The petitioner even cannot object to such construction, if it was done, invoking provisions of the Disaster Management Act. However, nothing there on record to show that the petitioner has been legally dispossessed from the land. Therefore, saving the action initiated under the Disaster Management Act, the following directions are issued.

¶64

i. The petitioner shall not be dispossessed/evicted from the land, without recourse or to any procedure established under the law.

¶65

ii. The 5^th respondent shall not undertake any construction of bus bay unless the land is resumed from the petitioner in accordance with the law.

¶66

The writ petition is disposed of, as above.

¶67

sd/-

¶68

sab

¶69

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶70

W.P.(C).No.1225 of 2016 - : 5 :-

The City Theatres (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The City Theatres (P) Ltd. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Venugopal Vs Union of India & Another

Johny Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Arogyamary Vs State of Kerala

Pavithran Vs State of Kerala

N.P.Raman Kutty Vs Sub Registrar Anthicadu

Akhila Vs Tahsildar