Dismissed

Sulochana v. State of Kerala.

Kerala HC6 Feb 2017WP(C)/11412/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed Writ Petitions seeking assignment of temple land under lease and permission for renovation. It held that the Government acted correctly in rejecting the claim as the land is leased to the Temple Administration Board and the petitioner has no legal right to intervene.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed with observations that the petitioner could approach the Government if she felt entitled to assignment.

Sulochana Vs State of Kerala. — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/17TH MAGHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 11412 of 2006 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SULOCHANA CHANNATTI,

¶8

KULATHINDE KIZHAKKATHIL, PAIKUZHI, OACHIRA.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SMT.S.SIBHA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

¶14

4. THE TAHSILDAR, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶15

5. THE SECRETARY, OACHIRA KSHETHRA BHARANA SAMITHI, OACHIRA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶16

R1-R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.VIDYA A.C. R5 BY ADV. SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-02-2017, ALONG WITH WPC. 19668/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

msv/

¶19

WP(C).No. 11412 of 2006 (H)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

P1TRUE COPY OF THE WILL DATED 4.6.1994 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER VELUTHA CHANNATTI.

¶23

P2TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DTD.9.1.1997 OF THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER.

¶24

P3TRUE COY OF THE RATION CARD.

¶25

P4TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD.21.3.2003 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, OACHIRA.

¶26

P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD.3.9.1991 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OACHIRA PANCHAYAT.

¶27

P5TRUE COPY OF THE RATION CARD ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.

¶28

P6TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DTD.18.5.2002 SUBMITTED BY THE SPECIAL REVENUE INSPECTOR.

¶29

P7TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.24.9.2002 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL.

¶30

P8TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DTD.8.7.2003 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.

¶31

P9TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.13.10.2005 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

¶32

P10- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.26.7.1991 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR.

¶33

P11- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.29.3.2006 ALONG WITH ENCLOSURES RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶34

EXT.R5(a): COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ALONG WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE LEASE.

¶35

EXT.R5(b): COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE SHOWING THE RECEIPT OF KUTHAKAPATTAM FOR THE YEAR 2011-2012. //TRUE COPY//

¶36

P.S.TO JUDGE

¶37

Msv/

¶38

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶39

................................................. W.P.(C) Nos.11412 of 2006 & 19668 of 2008

¶40

............................................... Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2017

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

The petitioner claims assignment in respect of 1.82 ares of land in Survey No.55/2-I of Ochira village. The assignment application was considered by the District Collector and confirmed that the property forms part of the land given on lease to Ochira Temple Committee and it is for the Government to consider whether the assignment could be granted. Pursuant to it, the Government passed Ext.P9 order rejecting the request of the petitioner.

¶43

Petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order dated 13.10.2005 inter alia contending that the temple committee does not require the said land and therefore nothing prevents the Government from considering the claim of the petitioner.

¶44

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on Ext.P11, appended with a report dated 18.02.2006 of the Tahsildar in which it is indicated that the property was in the possession of petitioner's mother for quiet a long time and after her death on 05.09.1996, the petitioner is in possession of the said property.

¶45

W.P.(C) Nos.11412/06 & 19668/08

¶46

¶47

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5^th respondent inter alia stating that the petitioner does not have any independent right in respect of the property in question. She is only a tresspasser allegedly occupying the aforesaid land. The said land is part of 21 acres 25.170 cents of land comprised in old survey No.9035/1, new survey no.55/2 of Ochira village, which forms part of the premises of the Ochira Parabrahma Temple. In 1953 the said land has been leased out to the Temple Administration Board for 25 years. Later on 21.07.1962 the lease was renewed and the land has been given to the Temple Administration Board for 99 years. R5(a) is the said Government Order and R5(b) is the receipt for payment of Kuthakapattam for the year 2011-2012. It is further contended that the petitioner is a married women and was residing with her family members in the nearby place about 1 km. away from the disputed property in Krishnapuram Village. She was also the owner of another 8 cents of land in old Sy. No.7739 in Krishnapuram Village, which was transferred in the name of her sister's son Varadharajan as per registered deed No.2872 of 1990 of the SRO, Kayamkulam. It is also contended that she was staying in the temple as in the case of so many devotees living on the Annadhanam of the temple. Subsequently she put up a hut on the side of the temple pond unauthorisedly. After the demise of her mother she started to occupy the hut. She effected transfer of her own property in the name of her

¶48

W.P.(C) Nos.11412/06 & 19668/08

¶49

¶50

sister's son Varadharajan for the purpose of claiming kudikidappu. It is also contended that the petitioner cannot have any independent right and she cannot ask for assignment of the land already in lease for the favour of a Temple Administration Board.

¶51

The learned Government Pleader also supported the stand taken by the 5^th respondent and contended that the petitioner is not entitled for any assignment insofar as this land is forming part of a lease granted in favour of the Temple Administration Board.

¶52

Having heard the learned counsel on either side and having perused the records, I do not think that any errror has been committed by the Government in issuing Ext.P9. In Ext.P9 it is indicated that the property which is claimed by the petitioner is forming part of the Ochira temple, which was given on lease to them and therefore assignment cannot be considered. In so far as this property is under assignment to Temple Administration Board, the mere fact that the petitioner's mother was residing in a portion since 1963 cannot give any right as such to claim the assignment of the property. It is also observed by the Government that the prohibitory assessment had been imposed on the petitioner for occupying the land without permission.

¶53

W.P.(C) Nos.11412/06 & 19668/08

¶54

¶55

Unless the temple committee agrees that this land can be excluded, it would not be possible for the Government to take a different view in the matter. Considering these facts, I do not think that the petitioner has ventilated any grievance warranting interference by this Court. However, still if the petitioner feels that she is entitled for assignment, nothing prevents the petitioner from approaching the Government. With the above observations this writ petition is dismissed.

¶56

W.P.(C) No. 19668 of 2008

¶57

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking permission for renovation of the structure situated in the above property. Insofar as the petitioner does not have a legal right to remain in possession of the property belonging to the Government, it is not possible for her to renovate any building in the property without Government sanction. Under such circumstances, there is justification on the part of the Panchayat refusing the grant of building permit. I do not find any ground to interfere with the said order. Accordingly, this writ petition is also dismissed.

¶58

sd/-

¶59

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶60

AMV/15/02/2017

Sulochana v. State of Kerala.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulochana 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

Dr.K.Pavithran Vs Dr.Aravindh.S

Prejith K. Balakrishnan Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Asharaf K.H Vs Seena M.A

Sidhik Vs State of Kerala

M.Krishnan Nair Vs the Dist. Collector and Others

The Kasargod Co-Operative Marketing Vs State of Kerala