Disposed

B Six Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Sept 2016WP(C)/15950/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of two writ petitions concerning the cancellation of land assignments. The Court held the original assignee lacked locus standi. Upholding the rejection of the revision on that procedural ground, the Court vacated the order on merits to allow the District Collector to consider the pending appeal by the current rights holder within six months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed without observation on merits; District Collector directed to expedite appeal proceedings within six months.

B Six Holiday Resorts Pvt. 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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/6TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

W.P(C).No.15950 of 2007 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

B6 HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD.

¶8

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT TC.15/586, M.P.APPAN ROAD, VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SUDHEER KUMAR.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.SURESH SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI.

¶14

4. THE SUB COLLECTOR, DEVIKULAM.

¶15

5. THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM.

¶16

R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.VINITHA HARIRAJ.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-09-2016, ALONG WITH WP(C).3539/2008-U, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶18

WP(C).No.15950 of 2007-W

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶21

EXT.P1	COPY OF THE PATTA ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF PANDARAM, SON OF ALAGARSAMY BEARING NO.12939 IN LA.160/93.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BY PANDARAM SON OF ALAGARSAWMY IN FAVOUR OF BSIX HOLIDAY RESORTS AND DATED 19.8.1995.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF RAJU SIVAN BEARING NO.12940 IN LA.159 OF 1993.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE LAND COVERED BY EXT.P3 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF RAJU SIVAN BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ANAVARATTI DATED 16.4.1994.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF RAJU SIVAN AND DATED 25.4.1994.
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 19.8.1995 BEARING NO.2417 OF 1995 OF DEVIKULAM SRO, EXECUTED BY RAJU SIVAN IN FAVOUR OF B6 HOLIDAY RESORTS.
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF NO OBJECTION ISSUED BY THE PALLIVASAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH IN FAVOUR OF B SIX HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT. LTD. DATED 12.10.1995.
EXT.P8	TRUE COPY OF ROUGH SKETCH IN RELATION TO THE PROPERTIES COVERED BY EXHIBIT P2 AND P6.
EXT.P9	TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF B6 HOLIDAY RESORTS IN RELATION TO AN EXTENT OF 1 HECTARE 82 ARES 19 SQ.M. IN SURVEY NO.178-1.2 OF THE ANAVARATTI VILLAGE POF DEVIKULAM TALUK.
EXT.P10	TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT IN RELATION TO THE PROPERTIES IN SURVEY NO.17/1-2 OF ANAVARATTI VILLAGE COVERING AN EXTENT OF 1 HECTARE 82 ARES 19 SQ.MET3ERS FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1995-2001 AND 2001-02.
EXT.P11	TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 2003-04 DATED 26.6.2003.
EXT.P12	TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 2004-05 DATED 4.5.2005.
EXT.P13	TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 2005-06 DATED 18.4.2006.
EXT.P14	TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 2007-08 DATED 25.04.2007.

¶22

WP(C).No.15950 of 2007-W

¶23

- 2 -

¶24

EXT.P15	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER THE BUILDING TAX ACT IN RELATING TO THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN THE PROPERTY IN SURVEY NO.178/1-1 ALONG WITH NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 2.3.2007.
EXT.P16	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY PALLIVASAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH IN RELATION TO THE REMITTANCE OF PROPERTY TAX UNDER THE PANCHAYATH RAJ ACT AND D&O LICENCE DT.30.1.2004 AND 30.03.2007 PRODUCED COLLECTIVELY.
EXT.P17	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 18.5.2007 ISSUED BY SUB COLLECTOR, DEVIKULAM.
EXT.P18	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN RELATION TO THE NOTICE DATED 18.5.2007.
EXT.P19	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 21.5.2007 REQUESTING COPIES OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS.
EXT.P20	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 21.5.2007 REQUESTING OPNE WEEKS TIME FROM RECEIPT OF COPIES OF OFFICIAL RECORDS FOR FILING DETAILED REPLY.
EXT.P21	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, DEVIKULAM DATED 22.5.2007.
EXT.P22	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM ON 23.5.2007.
EXT.P23	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSION DATED 20.6.2001.
EXT.P24	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.
EXT.P25	TRUE COPY OF THE SGTAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P24.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶26

-------------------------NIL.

¶27

vku/[ true copy ]

¶28

K. Vinod Chandran, J

¶29

----------------------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) Nos.15950 of 2007-W & 3539 of 2008-U

¶30

¶31

Dated this the 28^th day of September, 2016

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

Both the writ petitions are concerned with the cancellation

¶34

of an assignment made by the Sub Collector of lands in survey No.482/1. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 3539 of 2008 is the original assignee; who transferred the property, having an extent of 3 acres, to the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.15950 of 2007. The petitioner in W.P. (C) 15950 of 2007 has purchased a further extent of 1.5 acres from one Pandaram; in the very same survey number. The assignments were cancelled by the Sub Collector which order is produced as Exhibit P9 in W.P.(C) No.3539 of 2008 and Exhibit P21 in W.P.(C). 15950 of 2007.

¶35

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3539 of 2008 had approached this Court earlier against the order passed by the Sub Collector cancelling the assignment granted to him, which writ petition was disposed of by Exhibit P10 judgment. A learned Single Judge, by the said judgment, directed the petitioner to file a revision under Rule 21(8) of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules before the

¶36

WP(C) No.15950 of 2007 & - 2 - 3539 of 2008

¶37

Commissioner of Land Revenue, bypassing the appellate remedy before the District Collector since this Court found that the District Collector having been involved in the eviction proceedings he would not be able to make an impartial consideration of the issue. The original assignee approached the Commissioner of Land Revenue, which revision was rejected as per Exhibit P1, which is impugned herein. Over and above the contentions taken on merits, the original assignee also claimed that he was not heard before the assignment was cancelled.

¶38

The subsequent assignee of the property, the petitioner in W.P.(C)15950 of 2007, was issued with notice and was heard when Exhibit P21, produced in the said writ petition, was passed. Exhibit P21 dealt with assignment of Raju [petitioner in WP(C) No.3539 of 2008] and also Pandaram. The subsequent assignee had filed an appeal before the District Collector at Exhibit P24, which is said to be pending even as of now. The subsequent assignee, from whom the land was taken over and the building constructed therein demolished,

¶39

had also filed a suit for declaration, recovery of possession and damages; which is said to be pending before the Munnar Tribunal.

¶40

WP(C) No.15950 of 2007 & - 3 - 3539 of 2008

¶41

If the appeal filed by the subsequent assignee is directed to be considered, then necessarily the District Collector would be bound by the decision arrived at by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, the revisional authority, at Exhibit P1 in W.P.(C) No.3539 of 2008. Hence first W.P.(C) No.3539 of 2008 has to be considered.

¶42

It is seen from Exhibit P1 that the Land Revenue Commissioner had raised two issues to be decided - (i) whether proper notice has been served on all parties affected by the order and (ii) whether sufficient grounds exist to cancel the assignment order. The Land Revenue Commissioner noticed the fact that the original assignee has no locus standi insofar as having transferred the entire rights over the property to the subsequent assignee. In such circumstances, the Land Revenue Commissioner ought to have rejected the revision for that reason alone. The Land Revenue Commissioner also found that proper notices were issued to the subsequent assignee and was heard before the Sub Collector passed

¶43

the order. The Land Revenue Commissioner then entered on the merits of the case and found that the assignment was sought of the

¶44

WP(C) No.15950 of 2007 & - 4 - 3539 of 2008

¶45

property in Survey No.435, while the actual assignment was made from survey No.482/1; which has been found to be not assignable. However, there is nothing in the order to show as to how the Land Revenue Commissioner came to the finding that the land is not assignable. In any event, as was noticed herein above, ideally the Land Revenue Commissioner ought to have rejected the revision when he found that the petitioner had no locus standi; then the subsequent assignee could have taken up the issue before the higher forums.

¶46

In the above circumstances, the rejection of the revision at Exhibit P1 is upheld; but, however, vacating the order on merits, which is not based on any sustainable ground. The vacation of the said order is only since an appeal is said to be pending before the Appellate Authority, the District Collector; filed by the person who has the present subsisting interest in the property. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the merits; as to whether the land in survey No.482/1 is assignable or not. It could be considered by the District Collector when considering the appeal filed by the subsequent assignee.

¶47

WP(C) No.15950 of 2007 & - 5 - 3539 of 2008

¶48

In the above circumstances, W.P.(C) No.3539 of 2008 is disposed of, upholding the rejection of the revision; but, however, only

¶49

to the extent of the revision petitioner therein being found to be not having any locus standi with respect to the property. The cancellation of the assignment, however, has to be considered in Exhibit P24 appeal, produced in W.P.(C) No.15950 of 2007. The District Collector would expedite the proceedings and after issuing notice to the petitioner, pass final orders within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall co-operate with the proceedings in appeal. W.P.(C) No.15950 of 2007 is disposed of with the above directions. Parties are left to suffer their

¶50

respective costs.

¶51

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶52

vku/-

¶53

[ true copy ]

B Six Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Six Holiday Resorts Pvt. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Remadevi Vs V.S. Jayakumar

General Secretary,Sbt Vs Industrial Tribunal

Punjab National Bank Employees Untion Vs Punjab National Bank

Kararinakam Servicem Co.Operative Bank L Vs K.Navas

M.K.Salim Vs Smt.Umaiba Beevi

P.I.Iype, Son of Iype Vs State of Kerala and Others