IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 7027 of 2002(J) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ENGLISH INDIAN CLAYS LTD., VELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, M.M.GEORGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE (U) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL P. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP.No12427 of 2002 in OP.No.7027 of 2002. DISMISSED. 3-1-2008. Sd/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: Copy of G.O.(P) No.220/Rev. Dated 30-3-1964. P2: Copy of G.O.(Ms) No.212/66/ID dated 18-5-1966. P3: Copy of G.O.(P) No.566/95/RD dated 13-11-1995. P4: Copy of G.O.(Ms) No.208/99/RD dated 9-6-1999. P5: Copy of representation by the petitioner dtd.29-6-1999. P6: Copy of order issued by the 3rd respondent dtd.9-1-2002. P7: Copy of judgment in OP.No.3863/02 dated 15-2-2002. P8: Copy demand notice given by the 3rd respondent. P9: Copy of detail of payment made by the petitioner. P10: Copy of G.O.(P) No.224/99/LSGD dated 30-11-1999. P11: Copy of proceedings No.B1.41423/97 dated 9-8-2002 issued by the 3rd respondent. P12: Copy of letter No.B1-7829/97 dated 20-9-2003 issued by the Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram. P13: Copy of G.O.(P) No.126/2004/RD dated 14-5-2004. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- Nil. ( true copy ) P.A. to Judge. kvs/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P.No.7027 OF 2002-J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is a Public Limited Company doing the business of mining and processing of China clay. The Company was granted lease on Government land in Cheruvickal village in Thiruvananthapuram district and it appears that presently the Company is in possession of 9.07 acres of land. Lease was originally granted on condition of payment of 6% of the market value as lease rent. Ext.P2 is the order by which the original lease was granted. The period of lease expired in the year 1991 and on certain conditions it was renewed also. The lease was renewed by Ext.P4 dated 9-6-1999 whereby the lease rent was fixed at 20% of the market value of the land and the Government has specifically renewed it from the year 1991 onwards for 25 years. The Company submitted a representation against the matter as per Ext.P5 which is said to be pending even now. Thereafter by Ext.P8 a demand notice was issued for the payment of O.P.No.7027 OF 2002-J. 2 Rs.1,45,59,347/- as lease rent. Ext.P9 will show that the Company had already paid 50% of the demand. 2. The lease rent has been fixed at 20% of the market value relying upon Ext.P3 Rules namely, Rules for Assignment of Lands within Municipal and Corporation Areas, 1995. The relevant clause in Ext.P3 relating to fixation of lease rent is Clause No.12(5). According to the said rules, the annual lease rent has to be fixed at the rate of 10% of the market value of the land when it is used for non-commercial purposes and 20% of the market value of the land when it is used for commercial purposes. But the said rule is applicable only for assignment of lands within Municipal and Corporation areas and not in Panchayat areas. By Government Order dated 30-11-1999 alone Kadakampally village was included within the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at any rate only from the date of effect of Ext.P10 alone the applicability of Ext.P3 order arises for the purpose of fixing the least rent. 3. I see force in the submission above made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Ext.P3 is issued under the Kerala O.P.No.7027 OF 2002-J. 3 Government Land Assignment Act, 1960 and are relevant rules for assignment of Government land within the Municipal and Corporation area. Ext.P3 cannot have any application then to these lands, as Kadakampally panchayat was included in the Corporation area only by Ext.P10. No imposition of lease rent as applicable to the corporation area can be made against the petitioner prior to the date of Ext.P10. The method provided under Rule 12(5) of the said rules can have applicability as regards the Municipal/Corporation areas and not in respect of panchayat area. Even though the lease is renewed from 1991 onwards for 25 years, upto the date of Ext.P10 the area remained within a panchayat alone. These aspects have not been obviously considered by the respondents while fixing the lease rent. In view of the above, the matter has to be reconsidered by the competent authority. 4. Highly aggrieved by the fixation of the lease rent the petitioner has already filed Ext.P5 representation before the Government. They have also pointed out therein that the basis for fixing the market value and the lease rent has not been intimated to the petitioner so far. Since Ext.P5 is still pending before the Government, there will be a direction to the first respondent to take a decision on O.P.No.7027 OF 2002-J. 4 Ext.P5 after hearing the petitioner in the light of the findings entered as above. The same shall be done within five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The interim order granted by this Court will continue till orders are passed. Original Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/