IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 28018 of 2006(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ E.P. ATTAKOYA THANGAL, S/O.LATE ARANAKKADA KOYA THANGAL, RESIDING AT DAR-UL-KHYRE, KAVARATTI, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.) SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, KAVARATTI, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, LAKSHADWEEP PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT KAVARATTI, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (HQ), COLLECTORATE, KAVARATTI, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP. 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KAVARATTI, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.PR.RAMACHANDRA MENON,SC,LAKSHADWEEP FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER's EXHIBITS. EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18-2-1980 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS F. NO.13/25/77-LR(1) DATED 18-2-1980. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION F.NO.19/15/94-SDO(KVT). EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FAX MESSAGE DATED 5-10-2006. RESPONDENT's EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SEC. 7(2) NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SURVEY OFFICER IN FAVOUR OF MR.ARANAKADA KOYA THANGAL. EXT.R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY MAP. EXT.R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH PATTA NO.1977. (TRUE COPY) PS TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 28018 OF 2006 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The grievance voiced by the petitioner in this case is that the property in which he is having co-ownership right is going to be acquired by the respondents without recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Petitioner submits that his father Aranakkada Koya Thangal owned 17.4 Ares of land in survey No.97 in Kavaratti Village as his Thingalazcha property (self acquired). Out of the said property the respondents acquired 6.7 Ares after paying compensation and the petitioner relies on Exts.P1 and P2 documents to prove the acquisition. After the acquisition the remainder property was subdivided into survey No.97/6A having extent of 10.7 Ares and after the demise of the petitioner's father, the property devolved upon all his legal heirs including the petitioner. It is that remainder property which is subject matter of this writ petitioner. According to the petitioner, on the subject property there are two buildings by name Barkath Bhavan and Mahila Samajam which are occupied by Government agencies. Ext.P3 letter from the Deputy Collector is relied on to show that the petitioners claim for rent is pending consideration. The petitioner alleges that in pursuance to order No.10/10/2006-SDO WP(C)N0.28018/06 -2- (Kvt.) dated 25-9-2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kavaratti attempts began to cut and remove the trees on the subject property apparently with the intention of constructing a four lane road. The petitioner approached the respondents, in vain, and thereafter filed Ext.P4 representation before the President of India. Petitioner points out that as per Government records the tenure of the property is Cowl and as Cowldar petitioner and his co-owners are entitled to fixity of tenure and assignment of the holding by virtue of sections 83 and 84 of the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands Land Revenue and Tenancy Regulation, 1965. Therefore any acquisition without recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 or any other law relating to acquisition or requisition of the property will be illegal. On these allegations the petitioner prays for the issuance of (1) a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner except by following the statutory procedure; (2) issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from cutting the trees and pulling down the trees and/or leveling the subject property; and (3) for a direction to the respondents to grant the petitioner fair and just compensation. 2. On behalf of respondents 1 to 4, viz., the Union Territory of WP(C)N0.28018/06 -3- Lakshadweep, the Superintending Engineer, Lakshadweep Public Works Department, the Deputy Collector, Kavaratti and the Sub Divisional Officer, Kavaratti, the Secretary to the Lakshadweep Administrator has filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is contended that the writ petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties since other persons who have admittedly interest in the land have not been arrayed as parties. It is then stated that the land in question was under the ownership and possession of the erstwhile Madras State even before the Union Territory of Lakshadweep was constituted in 1956. The land was Katchery Pandaram land and was resurveyed and splitted as per the provisions in the Survey and Boundary Regulations, 1959 and the rules framed thereunder with notice to all the land holders under section 7(2). Ext.R1(a) is copy of the notice under section 7(2) issued to Mr.Aranakada Koya Thangal, the father of the petitioner. Many subdivisions were created from the above land in Sy. No.97 for construction of various buildings for departmental purpose and Ext.R1(b) copy of the topographical survey map is relied on in this context. The counter affidavit points out that absolutely no documentary evidence is produced by the petitioner to show that the Pandaram Land covered by R1 (a) was given as Cowldar tenancy WP(C)N0.28018/06 -4- either by the erstwhile Madras State or by the Lakshadweep Administration while Exts.P1 and P2 are admittedly to be records relating to land sanctioned in favour of Aranakada Koya Thangal. The counter affidavit contends that the petitioner has not produced documentary evidence regarding payment of the sanctioned amount to Sri.Aranakada Koya Thangal. 3. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit also it is reiterated that the land in Sy. No.97/6A is a part of Pandaram Land known as Katcheri Pandaram and that the same is under the proprietorship of the Government. The old Coir Department stood on the disputed land and it is after demolishing the said department that Barkath Bhavan building presently demolished for the construction of approach road from the main road was constructed. The subject land was under the ownership and possession of the Government from time immemorial even before the formation of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. The land does not belong to the petitioner or his ancestors and therefore there is no liability to pay compensation to them under the Land Acquisition Act. It is stated that the petitioner's father was never recorded in the revenue records of 1934-36 or in any prior or subsequent records as the owner or Cowldar of the land. It is pointed WP(C)N0.28018/06 -5- out that in Ext.P3 petitioner has admitted the land to be Pandaram land and Patta was confirmed in favour of the Revenue Sub Division Officer under Rough Patta No. 1977. Ext.R1(c) copy of the Rough Patta is produced along with the counter affidavit. The counter affidavit refers to subsection © of section 2 of LRT Regulation 1965 and submits that “Cowldar” means a person who has been or is granted a lease of Pandaram Land on rent for a specified period, one among the several conditions being that the lessee makes improvements on the property. It is pointed out that cowl agreement is yet to be produced by the petitioner. It is further pointed out that the petitioner has not filed any representation before the first respondent for confirmation of the rights of occupancy under section 83 and this is pointed out as a circumstance speaking out the falsity of the petitioner's case. 4. I have heard the submissions of Sri.P.B.Krishnan, counsel for the petitioner and also those of Sri.P.R.Ramachandra Menon, standing counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration. 5. Having regard to the submissions addressed and the statutory provisions to which my attention was drawn I am of the view that the question of the petitioner becoming entitled for getting value of the WP(C)N0.28018/06 -6- acquired lands as compensation for the acquisition can arise only if the administrator has conferred occupancy rights to the petitioner invoking regulation No.83 of the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands Land Revenue and Tenancy Regulation, 1965. But at the same time Cowldars may be entitled for value of improvements if they have effected valuable improvements and the property under acquisition takes in such improvements. If the petitioners approach the administrator of the first respondent Union Territory within one month of his receiving copy of this judgment with proper application under regulation 83 the administrator will hold such enquiries as are warranted, hear the petitioner and take a decision. The order to maintain status quo as obtaining on 26-10-2006 will be maintained for a period of four months from today. The acquisition and payment of compensation with interest be regulated by the decision to be taken by the administrator on the prospective application to be submitted by the petitioner under regulation No.83. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) ksv/