Dismissed

G. Sakunthala v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jun 2016WP(C)/6063/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition seeking assignment of 3.150 cents of land identified as road purambokku. The court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit because the land cannot be assigned due to potential future government requirements for road widening. However, the petitioner shall not be evicted pending such requirement.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises, subject to future government requirement for road widening.

G. Sakunthala Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/30TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 6063 of 2015 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

G.SAKUNTHALA, KALAYIL VEEDU, T.C.NO.7/1691, PANGODE, SATHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶11

2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033.

¶12

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶13

4. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶14

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

mbr/

¶17

WP(C).No. 6063 of 2015 (G)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶20

P1TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.7.2001 ALONG WITH THE PLAN SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶21

P2TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A4/408/2001 DATED 25.5.2002 SENT BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ROADS DIVISION.

¶22

P3TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.6.2003 OF TRIDA TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶23

P4TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.10.2014 SENT BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶24

P5TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE MUNICIPAL/CORPORATION LAND ASSIGNMENT COMMITTEE

¶25

DATED 25.12.2005.

¶26

P6TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.2.2007 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶27

P7TRUE COY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.3.2011.

¶28

P8- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AE/C.R.S.II/09 DATED 16.3.2009 OF THE ASST. ENGINEER

¶29

P9- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.3.2012 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH TYPED COPY.

¶30

P10- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LR.J3-8668/13 DTD 4.12.2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶31

P11- TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION MEMORANDUM.

¶32

P12- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 18.1.14 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶33

P13- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.68364/U1/2014/REVENUE DATED 5.1.2015.

¶34

P14- PHOTOCOPY OF BTO REGISTER, REFERRED TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT.

¶35

P15- PHOTOCOPY OF CIRCULAR NO.20541/C3/09/PWD DATED 30.9.2009, REFERRED TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT.

¶36

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶42

---------------------------------W.P(C). No.6063 of 2015-G

¶43

---------------------------------Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2016

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

The petitioner is aggrieved with Exts.P9, P10 & P12 orders. The claim raised by the petitioner was for assignment of 3.150 cents of land, which she is said to be in possession for about 40 years. The petitioner had made an application far back in the year 2001, upon which, the Tahsildar had conducted an enquiry, prepared a sketch and forwarded Ext.P1 to the District Collector. The Tahsildar did not raise any objection with respect to the assignment of land. By Ext.P2, the Executive Engineer, Roads Division also submitted that except the portion

¶46

W.P.(C) No.6063 of 2015-G

¶47

¶48

having an area of 9.50x3 meters specifically marked in Ext.P1 sketch, the land lying behind that cannot be used for road widening purposes. The Trivandrum Development Authority also did not have any objection as revealed from Ext.P3. The Land Revenue Commissioner by Ext.P4 expressed willingness in so far as assigning the said land. However, the Committee dealing with assignment of lands found that 3.150 cents of land sought for by the petitioner was a road purambokku and hence cannot be assigned.

¶49

The District Collector then passed Ext.P6, against which Ext.P7 appeal was filed and there was an order of remand. The Assistant Engineer, PWD Road Section submitted as per Ext.P8 dated 16.03.2009 that 3.15 cents of land earmarked in Ext.P1, except the area comprising

¶50

W.P.(C) No.6063 of 2015-G

¶51

¶52

9.50 x 3 meters could be assigned. Despite that Ext.P9 order was passed, again refusing assignment. This was confirmed in Ext.P10 appellate order.

¶53

In all the orders, the contention taken by the Government is that the land sought to be assigned is a road purambokku, which cannot be so assigned for reason of the Government, in the event of requiring the property for widening of the roads at that point of time would have to pay compensation to the person, who has been assigned with such lands. The Counter Affidavit of the Government also indicates that the proposed land comes under road purambokku as per the BTR and Purambokku Registers.

¶54

The road purambokku; cannot be assigned

¶55

W.P.(C) No.6063 of 2015-G

¶56

¶57

as per the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, argues learned Government Pleader. Such assignment of road purambokku land is also interdicted by Government Circular No.20541/C3/ 2009/PWD dated 30.09.2009. It was hence the land has not been assigned to the petitioner. The Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 defines purambokku inter alia as excess land used or reserved for public purposes.

¶58

In the circumstances projected herein, this Court is of the opinion that no assignment can be made of the land, since it cannot be said that the Government would not require the land in future, especially since it lies adjacent to a road. The Certificates issued by the Roads Division of the PWD can only be an indication of there being no proposal for

¶59

W.P.(C) No.6063 of 2015-G

¶60

¶61

widening pending as of now. If widening of the road is undertaken at any point of time, then the Government may require the land and it cannot lead to a situation, where the government is asked to pay compensation for the land which were vested in it. The petitioner cannot claim any absolute right for assignment and the Government could do that only in consonance with the extant rules and also ensuring that there may not arise a public need for the said land in future. In such circumstance, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit. However since the Government's contention is only that the land is road purambokku and it may be required for road widening, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the said premises, where she has been

¶62

W.P.(C) No.6063 of 2015-G

¶63

¶64

continuing for long years. The petitioner's continuance would however be subject to any requirement of the Government for road widening.

¶65

The writ petition would stand dismissed, but with the above observation. No costs.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

K. VINOD CHANDRAN,

JUDGE.

//True Copy//

P.A. to Judge.

sp/20/06/16

G. Sakunthala v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Sakunthala 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

All Kerala Bus Operators Forum Vs V.A. Krishnadas

Sri.R.Nagarajan Vs Sri.P.Karthikeyan Nair

Gospel for Asia Vs State of Kerala

Udayan Vs Punalur Municipality

Reliance Security Agency Vs Gopalankutty Kurupu

Abdul Nasir Vs District Labour Officer