Remanded

Madeena Educational v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Nov 2016WP(C)/15899/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the fixation of lease rent for educational land by the Additional Tahsildar. The Court held that the method of procedure under Rule 12(5) of the Assignment of Land Rules must be followed based on the lease purpose and set aside the impugned order for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of Additional Tahsildar set aside and matter remanded for reconsideration of lease rent within two months.

Madeena Educational 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 15899 of 2005 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

MADEENA EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST, PERUMBAVOOR, REP. BY ITS TRUSTEE N.A.SALIM, AGED 43, S/O.ALIYAR, NANETHAN HOUSE, RAYONPURAM, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU.

¶13

4. ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNADU.

¶14

BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED ANSAR

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

WP(C).NO.15899/2005

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

P1 COPY OF THE AUTHORISATION ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TRUST ON 20/5/05.

¶21

P2 COPY OF THE TRUST DEED BEARING NO.11/10/92 DATED 20/1/92 OF PERUMBAVOOR SRO.

¶22

P3 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY TAHASILDAR KUNNTHUNADU TALUK TO THE PETITIONER ON 21/3/01 BEARING NO.C2-5048/99(5)

¶23

P4 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEARING NO.L9-6851/01 DATED 15/9/01

¶24

P5 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 16/10/01 BEARING NO.LR J3-39905/01.

¶25

P6 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LR(J3) 39905/01 DATED 20/12/04

¶26

P7 COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF 4TH RESPONDENT BEARING NO.C2-5048/99 (5) DATED 26/4/05

¶27

P8 COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS AND ANNEXURES:

¶29

ANNEX A1 COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT NO.L9-6852/01 DATED 14/1/2005.

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. =========================

¶34

W.P.(C).No.15899/2005

¶35

¶36

Dated this the 30^th day of November, 2016

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 decision of the Additional Tahsildar, Kunnathunad dated 26.4.2005 fixing lease rent payable by the petitioner for the period from 13.11.1995 to 12.11.2001. The additional Tahsildar happened to pass such an order based on the direction of the Land Revenue Commissioner in an appeal filed by the petitioner as against fixation of annual lease rent by the Additional Tahsildar.

¶39

The land in question is situated in Survey No.5 in Block No.65 in Perumbavoor Village having 2.70 Ares in extent. The main contention urged before this court is that the fixation is not proper as per the statute. I am also impressed by the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under sub rule 5 of Rule 12 of the Assignment of Land within Municipal & Corporation Areas Rules, 1995 framed under the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960 there is a method of procedure fixing the lease rent of land. This method is mainly based on the purpose for which lease was given. According to

¶40

W.P.(C).No.15899/2005

¶41

-:2:-

¶42

the petitioner, the object of the lease is educational purpose and therefore, Rule 12(5)(d) would apply under the above rules. I am of the view that it is for the Additional Tahsildar to reconsider the petitioner's request. However, certainly, while fixing the lease rent, he shall advert to the provisions in the lease rent as referred in sub rule 5 of Rule 12 of the above Rules. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Additional Tahsildar shall reconsider the matter within two months after notice to the petitioner.

¶43

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶46

Madeena Educational v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madeena Educational 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

Pathumma Vs Safeeya

Rev. Fr. Hypolitus Vs Prashant Nair

P.K. Mohanan Vs R. Girija

Basheer K.M. and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

Vishnu R. Vs the Eramalloor Servic Co-Operative Bank Limited

The Kerala State Co-Operative Coir Marketing Federation Limited Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Limited