Allowed

Njanodayam Library v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Oct 2018WP(C)/11011/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed by a library to assign public land for a public purpose. The High Court held that Government communications interdicting assignment are not Article 166(2) orders and cannot bar statutory applications. It quashed the rejection order, directing authorities to decide the application on merits within two months.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P12 order set aside; respondents directed to consider land assignment application on merits within two months, ignoring Exhibits P13 and P14.

Njanodayam Library Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 11011 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

NJANODAYAM LIBRARY

¶8

REG. NO. 3185, ESTD. 1955, THATTAMALA, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT R. SENTHIL RAJ, S/O. RAJENDRAN, MAZHUVEM CHERRY VEEDU, THATTAMALA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶13

COLLECTORATE, CIVIL LINES, CUTCHERY P.O., KOLLAM-691013.

¶14

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER COLLECTORATE, CIVIL LINES, CUTCHERY P.O., KOLLAM-691013.

¶15

4 THE TAHASILDAR

¶16

TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM-691001.

¶17

5 THE TAHASILDAR LAND RECORDS TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM-691001.

¶18

6 THE TAHASILDAR LAND ASSIGNMENT TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM-691001.

¶19

7 THE VILLAGE OFFICER ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, ERAVIPURAM P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691011.

¶20

8 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, ERAVIPURAM P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691011. BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶21

OTHER PRESENT:

¶22

DHANIL GP

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C).No.11011/18

JUDGMENT

1.Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following

¶28

reliefs:-

¶29

“i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P12 to P14 from the respondents and issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P12 to P14 orders declining to assign 5.90 Ares of property comprised in Re-Sy.No.360/15 and 360/16 in Block No.25 of Eravipuram village to the petitioner for public purpose for library as provided under Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960, Kerala Assignment Rules, 1964 and Assignment of land within Municipal and Corporation Areas Rules, 1995.

¶30

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to proceed with Ext.P3 and P4 application and assign 5.90 Ares of property comprised in ReSy.No.360/15 and 360/16 in Block No.25 of Eravipuram village to the petitioner for public purpose for library as provided under Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960, Kerala Assignment Rules, 1964 and Assignment of land within Municipal and Corporation Areas Rules, 1995 within a stipulated time as directed by this Hon'ble Court and till then the proceedings for assignment of the land for construction of Eravipuram Police Station may be kept in abeyance.

¶31

iii)To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get assign 5.90 Ares of property comprised in Re-Sy.No.360/15 and 360/16 in Block No.25 of Eravipuram village for public purpose for library as provided under Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960, Kerala Assignment Rules, 1964 and Assignment of Land within Municipal and Corporation Areas Rules, 1995.”

¶32

W.P.(C).No.11011/18

¶33

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶35

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's application for assignment of land had been favourably recommended by the Village Officer and the land value in respect of the same has already been fixed as evident from Ext.P3. It is stated that all steps had been taken for assignment as per the proceedings of the concerned authorities. However, the land is not assigned to the petitioner. The petitioner had approached this Court and Exhibit P11 judgment had been rendered on 18.12.2017 directing the consideration of applications preferred by the petitioner for assignment within six weeks. It is stated that by Exhibit P12 dated 3.2.2018, the application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that Exhibits P13 and P14 communications interdicted the consideration of the application. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Exhibits P13 and P14 communications are not Government Orders and statutory applications preferred by the petitioner cannot be interdicted by such communications.

¶36

W.P.(C).No.11011/18

¶37

¶38

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 4^th respondent wherein, after detailing the factual aspects of the matter, it is submitted that the applications preferred by the petitioner had been rejected only on the ground that Exhibits P13 and P14 orders interdicted the assignment of land to institutions and organizations.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Exhibits P3, P4 and P8 documents as well as Exhibit P15 detailed report would make it clear that the petitioner organization has been in possession of the land in question since 1957 and that all authorities had recommended the assignment of the land to the petitioner. In the above view of the matter, it is contended that the rejection of the petitioner's application on the ground that Exhibits P13 and P14 communications interdict the consideration of the statutory application is absolutely unwarranted.

¶40

The learned Government Pleader would contend that there is dearth of lands for assignment and in the above circumstances, Exhibits P13 and P14 have been issued by the Government. It is further submitted in the face of Exhibits P13 and P14 orders, the

¶41

W.P.(C).No.11011/18

¶42

¶43

respondents are interdicted from passing any orders of assignment to institutions and organizations like the petitioner.

¶44

I have considered the contentions advanced. I have gone through Exhibits P13 and P14 communications as well. The application preferred by the petitioner for assignment of land is a statutory application in terms of the Land Assignment Act and Rules. The applications apparently had been duly recommended by the revenue authorities as well. Exhibits P13 and P14, from the face of the documents itself, are only letters issued by the functionaries of the Government. They are not Government Orders issued in exercise of the executive powers of the State in terms of Article 166 (2) of the Constitution of India. I am of the opinion that the communications in the nature of Exts.P13 and P14 cannot interdict consideration of statutory applications in accordance with law. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the rejection of the applications preferred by the petitioner by Exhibit P12 order on the ground that Exhibits P13 and P14 communications interdict such consideration is absolutely unsustainable.

¶45

W.P.(C).No.11011/18

¶46

¶47

In the result, Exhibit P12 order is set aside. The respondents are

¶48

directed to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibits P3 and P4 applications preferred by the petitioner as directed in Exhibit P11, without reference to Exhibits P13 and P14 communications. Orders shall be passed on the merits of the matter, after considering the recommendations in Exhibits P3, P4, P8 and P15 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶49

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶50

Sd/- Anu Sivaraman, Judge

¶51

¶52

APPENDIX

¶53

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶54

EXHIBIT P1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 10.12.1999 ISSU DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PETITIONER.	LETTER NO. A4/568/99 ED BY THE BLOCK MUKHATHALA TO THE
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFILIATION DATED 27. KERALA STATE LIBRARY PETITIONER.	CERTIFICATE OF 10.1998 ISSUED BY THE COUNCIL TO THE

¶55

W.P.(C).No.11011/18

¶56

¶57

EXHIBIT P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28.11.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT, ITS SKETCH AND BASIC TAX REGISTER RECORDS.
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.03.2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.03.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.L2- 6978/07 DATED 23.03.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ITS REPLY DATED 13.08.2017.
EXHIBIT P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. SURVEY 3- 18490/09 DATED 07.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8	THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.EZ/6076/10 DATED 04.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY KOLLAM CORPORATION TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO. 59/2011 DATED 20.04.2011 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXHIBIT P10	THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29.11.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA.

¶58

W.P.(C).No.11011/18

¶59

¶60

EXHIBIT P11	THE TRUE COPY OF THE 18.12.2017 IN W.P.(C) THIS HON'BLE COURT.	JUDGMENT DATED NO. 36673/2017 OF
EXHIBIT P12	THE TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 03.02.2018 ISSU RESPONDENT TO THE PET	ORDER NO. B8.27166/17 ED BY THE 4TH ITIONER.
EXHIBIT P13	THE TRUE COPY OF THE 48925/A1/06/RD DATED THE 1ST RESPONDENT.	ORDER NO. 12.06.2006 ISSUED BY
EXHIBIT P14	THE TRUE COPY OF THE 10665/A1/13/REV. DATE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.	ORDER NO. D 12.03.2013 ISSUED BY
EXHIBIT P15	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LA/06, MAHAZAR, SKETC SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH	REPORT IN FILE NO.B8- H AND THE LIST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P16	THE TRUE COPY OF THE DT.17.1.2000 ISSUED B	ORDER C5-23248/99 Y TAHASILDAR KOLLAM.

True copy

PS to Judge

W.P.(C).No.11011/18

Njanodayam Library v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Njanodayam Library 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

Biju S Vs Tomin J.Thachankery IAS

Kerala Forest & Tourism Development Council - Idukki Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Celon Labortories Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

Shaiju Abdul Appa , Represented by His Power of Attorney Holder - Abdul Appa Vs State of Kerala

Poruvazhy Peruviruthy Malanada Temple Vs the State of Kerala

Rajan K.R. Vs Superidentant, Government Medical College