This writ petition challenged an order denying land allotment due to the petitioner's past non-compliance. The court ordered the Government to reconsider the matter afford hearings and fix market value if land exists.
Set aside Impugned GO order; Direct Government Authority to reconsider matter after hearing parties and officials of TRIDA within four months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 1ST MAGHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 1005 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
K.RAJAN AGED 75 YEARS S/O KRISHNAN, POONTHOPPU HOUSE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.
BY ADVS. R.T.PRADEEP SRI.S.V.PREMAKUMARAN NAIR SMT.M.BINDUDAS SRI.K.C.HARISH SMT.P.S.ANJU
RESPONDENTS:
BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR SRI.G.BIJU
SMT. LATHA THANKAPPAN SPL.G.GP AND SRI.BIJU S.C.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
W.P.(C) No. 1005 of 2021
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2022 .
This case has a history behind it.
mother of the petitioner – Smt.Devayani; and to come to the point directly, shorn of unnecessary details, the Government directed the Trivandrum Development Authority (TRIDA) to allot 14 cents of land to the legal heirs of Smt.Devayani and this was communicated to them, through Ext.P3, on 12.08.1992.
3
W.P.(C) No. 1005 of 2021
other legal heirs, with a consequential direction to them to remit the same, thus leading to the registration of the property in their favour.
4
W.P.(C) No. 1005 of 2021
remitted the land value of the earlier extent, in spite of the fact that they were so intimated. The petitioner impugns Ext.P7 on various grounds.
5
W.P.(C) No. 1005 of 2021
of his client, noticing that merely 15 cents of land was available with the TRIDA. He argued that even though, in Ext.P4, the TRIDA was allowed to use the property acquired from Smt.Devayani for public purposes, what have they done is to virtually sell the same by making constructions thereon in favour of affluent sections of the society; and therefore, that his client is not foreclosed from seeking an allotment of land in spite of the fact that he had not abided by Ext.P5 request. He therefore, reiterately prayed that this writ petition be allowed and Ext.P7 be set aside.
6
W.P.(C) No. 1005 of 2021
has no vacant land with them at all and therefore that the request of the petitioner, made nearly four decades after the acquisition, may not be accepted by this Court in any manner whatsoever.
7
W.P.(C) No. 1005 of 2021
former had surrendered the land free of cost, while the later had obtained the necessary compensation consequent to the acquisition. She then explained that Ext.P6 had been issued by the “Director” without being aware of the rigour of Ext.P4 judgment and therefore that the petitioner cannot take any undue advantage of the same. She thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
8
W.P.(C) No. 1005 of 2021
whether it be without knowing Ext.P4 or otherwise – the “Director” had made recommendations through Ext.P6, that if there is any land available with the TRIDA, the same be allotted to the petitioner and his siblings; and obviously, therefore, it means that such allotment ought to be done at the market value as of today. This recommendation cannot be seen to be perverse because if lands are available and it has not been put to use by the TRIDA, then certainly, instead allotting to others, priority or preference ought to be given to the petitioner and his siblings, who are the legal heirs of Smt.Devayani, in terms of law.
9
W.P.(C) No. 1005 of 2021
course, the said order also says that Ext.P6 has been issued by the “Director” without being aware of the said judgment.
but as one of indulgence, taking note of the factual circumstances over the years – so that, if they are
10
W.P.(C) No. 1005 of 2021
entitled to any relief in law, it may not be denied to them merely because they had not complied with the directions in Ext.P4 judgment.
Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P7; with a consequential direction to the competent Authority of the Government of Kerala to reconsider the matter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the other legal heirs of Smt.Devayani, as also to the competent officials of TRIDA; thus culminating in an appropriate fresh order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, while completing the afore exercise, the competent Authority of the Government will verify from the TRIDA if any lands are available for allotment and if so, they will be at liberty to fix the
11
W.P.(C) No. 1005 of 2021
necessary market value for the same as per law and as per the prevailing circumstances, so that the petitioner and his legal heirs can be given the option for acquiring it for such value.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE
Raj/21.01.2022.
12
W.P.(C) No. 1005 of 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1005/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF LAND ACQUISITION
NOTIFICATION DATED 1.10.1981.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 3.9.1987 BY
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF GO(Rt) NO. 4450/92/LAD
DATED 12.8.1992.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 13.3.1996
IN O.P NO 6627/1993.
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED
7.6.1996 BY WHICH THE LAND VALUE AS
FIXED
EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED
21.6.2019 TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO 1433/2020 LSGD
DATED 1.8.2020
EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO 3158/89/LAD
DATED 18.9.1989
EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 5.1.1994
IN OP NO 13077/1992
EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO. 641/2010/LSGD
DATED 25.2.2010
EXHIBIT P11TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED
1.12.2017 FROM DEPUTY COLLECTOR(LA) TO
DISTRICT COLLECTOR
Exhibit P12TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
6.9.1996 FOR THE INAUGURATION OF THE
13
W.P.(C) No. 1005 of 2021
ESTABLISHMENT WITH THE PHOTO OF
INAUGURATION.
Exhibit P13TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PHOTO PICTURE OF
''SANJEEVANI APARTMENTS''.
Exhibit P14TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE THANDAPER
TRANSFER OF SANJEEVANI APARTMENTS IN
THE NAME OF ALLOTTEES WHICH IS NIL
DATED .
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can seek relief despite non-compliance with earlier court order since land was not allotted then.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to have the impugned order setting aside land allotment recommendation reconsidered.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.RAJAN
STATE OF KERALA
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SCHEDULED CASTE/SCHEDULED TRIBE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court