Disposed

K.N.Viswanathan v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC1 Sept 2016WP(C)/36273/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought assignment of land in possession for 50 years. The High Court disposed of the writ petition as the land was already acquired for public purpose, referencing a Supreme Court precedent that prohibits assignment of such land to individuals.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; the petitioner is free to approach the respondents if the property is not required for the company or if the company is non-existent.

K.N.Viswanathan Vs State of Kerala and Another — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/10TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 36273 of 2010 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.N.VISWANATHAN, S/O.K.R.NARAYANAN, AGED 54 YEARS, KUNNUMPURATHU THARAYIL HOUSE, NERIAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 693.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU CHERUKARA SRI.P.ANTO THOMAS

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-30.

¶11

2. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN-666 891.

¶12

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANTHOSH PETER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

WP(C).No. 36273 of 2010 (H)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXT. P1 :	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8.3.2010 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT FROM THE PETITIONER.
EXT. P2 :	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 17.2.1994.
EXT.P2(A):	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 16.3.2005.
EXT. P3 :	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, NERIAMANGALAM DATED 18.2.1995.
EXT. P4 :	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER DATED 24.2.2010.
EXT. P5 :	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.L2-19866/2010 L.D.DIS DATED 8.4.2010.
EXT. P6 :	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.F5-286/13 DATED 4.5.2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT. P7 :	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.25/2014/RTI ACT DATED 3.9.2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NERIAMANGALAM.
EXT. P8 :	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CURRENT REGISTER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT. P9 :	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.387/2000/RD DATED 22.12.2000.
EXT. P10:	PHOTOGRAPH OF THE HUT OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT. P11:	TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE PANCHAYATH DATED 27.1.2007.
EXT. P12 :	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE TAHSILDAR KOTHAMANGALAM DATED 5.10.2009.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P(C) No.36273 of 2010-H

¶25

Dated this the 1^st day of September, 2016

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order by which he is informed that his request for assignment of land cannot be granted since the said land was already acquired, as per G.O(Ms) 387/2000/RD dated 22.12.2000. According to the petitioner, he has been in possession of his 16½ cents of property in Sy.No.759/1/C in Neriamangalam village for the past 50 years, which was originally in possession of his father. According to the petitioner, the petitioner’s father had already applied for patta and a Land Case (LC) is pending in respect of that. The petitioner had submitted a representation Ext.P1 on 8.3.2010 requesting for assignment of the land in his favour. He has also produced tax receipts Ext.P2 series for the years 1994 and 2005 in respect of the same property in support of his claim that he had been in possession of the same. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P4, which is stated to be obtained under the Right to Information Act as per letter dated 24.02.2010, which shows

¶28

W.P(C) No.36273 of 2010-H 2

¶29

that the property in Survey No.759/1/C had been assigned to different persons for the period from 1985-1996. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that, even if the adjacent properties are already assigned and the petitioner who has been in possession of the property for the last several years is entitled to get the property assigned since he comes within the 5^th preference under Rule 7 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 being a person having annual family income less than the limit prescribed therein.

¶30

The Government have filed a counter affidavit, according to which, the petitioner is an encroacher of Government land and already an LC case was registered against him as No.32 of 1992. It is stated that, he built a small hut in the land in the year 1992 and the encroachment, which was of 1 cent in the year 1990, was extended to 15 cents. It is stated that, the entire area comprised in Sy.No.759/1C-1 was assigned to Periyar Rubber Plantation Company and thereafter in the year 1965 it was acquired for Phyto chemical Products and converted to Government poramboke land. As per Ext.P9 order, ie. G.O (MS)No.387/2000/RD dt.22.12.2000, which is issued in the light of the judgment of the apex court in State of Kerala v.

¶31

W.P(C) No.36273 of 2010-H 3

¶32

Bhaskaran Pillai [1997 (2) KLT 217], the land acquired for public purpose cannot be assigned to individuals and it was for the said reason that the petitioner’s application was rejected.

¶33

According to the petitioner, Phyto chemicals products

¶34

is non existent and it was only a private company and the land cannot be said to have been acquired for any public purposes.

¶35

The petitioner will be free to approach the respondents, pointing out all these aspects, in case the said property is not required for the said company or the company is non existent.

¶36

Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the respondents for appropriate remedies, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶37

Sd/- (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)

¶38

rtr/

K.N.Viswanathan v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.N.Viswanathan v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Y.a.Rahim Vs the Secretary

B.S.Vsanthi Amma Vs Smt.Nalini Netto

Dr. George Justine v. Vs K.M. Abraham

Pazhani Vs Secretary,State Land Board and Others

P.Aboobacker Vs State of Kerala & Others

Dr.P.K.Raghavan Vs State of Kerala