IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 31957 of 2003(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ 1. THANKAMANI, W/O.KITTA, PALLIKULAM, PIRAYIRI VILLAGE, PALAKKAD. 2. THAMBY, S/O.ASSANKUTTY, PALLIKULAM, PIRAYIRI VILLAGE,PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.RAGHUNATH VS RESPONDENTS ---------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RANIDIOTHEMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 31957 of 2003(D) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF THE RATIO CARD ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER EXT.P1(A). COPY OF THE RATION CARD ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P2.COPY OF IDENTITY CARD FOR THE TREATMENT OF TB ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FOR THE PAYMENT OF FINE BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DURING 1997. EXT.P3(A). COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FOR THE PAYMENT OF FINE BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DURING 1997. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATD 10.2.2003 IN OP NO.580/2003. EXT.P5. COPY OF PROCEEDINGS KLC-5/03-04/G4 DATED 24.7.2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P5(A). COPY OF PROCEEDINGS KLC-5/03-04/G4 DATED 24.7.2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING PAYMENT OF FINE AND TAX BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 11.8.03. EXT.P6(A). COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING PAYMENT OF FINE AND TAX BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 11.8.03. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 12.8.2003 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P7(A). COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 12.8.20-03 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 11.8.2003 SUBMITTED BY 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P8(A). COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11.8.2003 SUBMITTED BY 2ND PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------------- / TRYE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31957 OF 2003 ===================== Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought in the writ petition is to direct the respondents to consider Exts.P8 and P8(a) applications along with Exts.P7 and P7(a). Further prayer is not to evict the petitioners until a decision is taken on Exts.P8 and P8(a). 2. Going by the pleadings in the writ petition, petitioners are encroachers who are occupying ½ cent of land in the puramboke land in Sy.No.329/1 of Pirayiri Village, Palakkad Taluk. According to the petitioners, they have been occupying the land for several years and that following the proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, petitioners have remitted the fine that was imposed on them. It is stated that, in the meanwhile, they submitted Exts.P8 and P8(a) applications for assignment of the land. It is stated that though no decision has been taken on their applications, they have been issued with notices requiring them to vacate from the land. It is complaining of the above, the writ petition is filed. WPC No.31957/03 :2 : 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent. According to the 1st respondent, admittedly the petitioners are encroachers in canal puramboke situated in Sy.No.329/1 in Block No.19 of Pirayiri Village of Palakkad Taluk. It is stated that one Safiya filed OP No.580/03 before this Court alleging that the petitioners unauthorised occupation is creating obstruction to their ingress and egress and complaining of inaction on the part of the official respondents. It is stated that pursuant to the directions of this Court, notices were issued to the parties, meetings were convened and that in those meetings, petitioners remained absent, and that, form C notices were issued imposing fine of ` 200/- each on the petitioners and requiring them to vacate from the encroachment. It is stated that it was thereafter that the petitioners submitted applications for assignment of the land. Although the respondents submit that the occupation of the petitioners will not create any obstruction to Safiya, the petitioner in OP No.580/03, 1st respondent submits that the request of the petitioners for assignment of the land cannot be considered. The reason stated in the affidavit is that the canal puramboke is highly necessary for the maintenance and WPC No.31957/03 :3 : inspection of the canal by the authorities. It is stated that if the said land is assigned, it will cause hindrance for inspection of the canal and for its maintenance. Therefore, according to the respondents, the request of the petitioners for assignment is impermissible. 4. Admittedly, the land in question is puramboke and the petitioners have no case that the land is an assignable land as contemplated under the Kerala Land Assignment Act. From the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is obvious that the retention of land as puramboke is essential for the purpose of maintenance and inspection of the canal in question. This necessity pointed out by the 1st respondent is not contradicted by the petitioners by filing any reply affidavit. In such circumstances, and in the absence of any legal right for the petitioners to insist that the land should be assigned, this Court will not be justified in finding fault with the respondents for not passing orders on Exts.P8 or P8(a). Therefore, the prayer in the writ petition for passing orders on Exts.P8 and P8(a) is only to be rejected and I do so. 5. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the WPC No.31957/03 :4 : petitioners are occupants of the land in question for the last several years and considering their various ailments and other circumstances pointed out, it is directed that it will be open to the petitioners to apply for assignment of some other plot of land. It is directed that, if such an application is made to the 1st respondent, 1st respondent will consider the said application in accordance with law and orders thereon will be passed. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp