IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 14TH BHADRA 1933 WA.No. 755 of 2011 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C) No.1320/2011 Dated 14/01/2011 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- V.R. CHARLY, S/O.ROCKY, VELIKKAKATH HOUSE, KUMBALANGHI SOUTH, KOCHI -682 007. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUMBALANGHI P.O.-682 007. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KOCHI TALUK, FORT COCHIN-682 002. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT COCHIN-682 002. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM-682 030. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 6. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REVENUE(A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, G.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 7. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, G.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENNY GERVACIS. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 755 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner, who is stated as aggrieved of the interference declined in the matter with regard to the challenge raised against Exts.P2, P5, P8 and P10. The sequence of events is as follows. 2. The appellant was having an extent of nearly 12 cents of property in Survey No.444, 445 of Kumbalangi Village in Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District. There was yet another extent of 4.85 cents of land adjoining the above property, which according to the respondents, was procured by the writ petitioner on encroachment. When the encroachment came to the notice of the revenue authorities, Ext.P2 order was passed by the 2nd respondent/Tahsildar on 25.07.1999, under the relevant provision of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, imposing a fine and also causing eviction from the encroached portion. W.A. No. 755 of 2011 -:2:- 3. The case of the writ petitioner was that he had already submitted an application under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Act/Rules and as borne by Ext.P1. Ext.P2 order was subjected to challenge by filing an appeal before the 3rd respondent/RDO which culminated in Ext.P5 order dated 21.01.2004 rejecting the appeal. This led to the further round of challenge by filing revision petition before the higher authorities finally culminating in Ext.P8 order passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner, declining interference. As the attempt made by the writ petitioner did not turn to be fruitful, it was further taken up before the Government, where also interference was declined as per Ext.P10 order dated 31.05.2010 holding that the Government did not have the power of revision, in view of the striking down of the relevant provision under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules as per the verdict passed by this Court in OP No.11480/98. This made the appellant/writ petitioner to approach this Court by filing the writ petition. 4. During the course of hearing it was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that in view of the verdict passed by this Court in OP No.11480/98, the property concerned W.A. No. 755 of 2011 -:3:- herein, which was a 'kayal puramboke', was not assignable under any circumstance. It was accordingly that the writ petition was dismissed, which is under challenge in this appeal. 5. Going by the materials on record, it is seen that the alleged application stated as preferred by the writ petitioner vide Ext.P1 is dated 30.04.1991. It is stated therein that the occupation is of '5 years old', as given in the entry against Column No.9. In the subsequent application, which is dated 28.11.1996 (forming part of Ext.P1 itself), the possession is stated as obtained in '1991', against the entry given in Column No.8. It is seen that the proceedings taken by the concerned authorities under the Land Conservancy Act right from Ext.P2 are based on the relevant provisions of law and no violation is pointed out or established. 6. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent adds that the land in question is not assignable to the writ petitioner even otherwise; for the reason that only three circumstances are contemplated as per the relevant rule; enabling the assignment. Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules reads as follows: W.A. No. 755 of 2011 -:4:- “4. Purposes for which land may be assigned.- Government lands may be assigned on registry for purposes of personal cultivation, house-sites and beneficial enjoyment of adjourning registered holdings.” 7. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the writ petitioner is admittedly having 12 cents of property nearby and he has constructed a residential building, enjoying the same to the exclusion of all others. The present extent of 4.85 acres of land, which forms the subject matter of the impugned order is not at all sought to be assigned for any personal cultivation or s house site. So also, it is not required for the beneficial enjoyment of the property actually owned and possessed by the appellant/petitioner. In the above circumstances, we find that the judgment under challenge does not call for any interference. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb