IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17574 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.P.SEBASTIAN, MANAGER, PULLALA ESTATE, PADAGIRI P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST & WILDLIFE (C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD-678 001. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NEMMARA DIVISION, NEMMARA-678 508. 4. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, FOREST RANGE OFFICE, NELLIYAMPATHI RANGE-678 511. SRI.P.M.PAULOSE, Spl. GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17574 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF LEASE DEED DATED 25.6.62 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12.7.10 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 23.6.10 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 14.12.10 EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 5.1.11 EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.6.11 (True Copy) P.A. To Judge P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).17574/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 29th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT 1.The grievance of the petitioner is that the lease rent in respect of the property in question is not liable to be enhanced in view of the specific statutory prescription; which however, is sought to be rebutted by the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2.The factual position as narrated in the writ petition shows that, an agreement was executed between the father of the petitioner and the Government as early as on 25.6.1962 vide Ext.P1 lease deed and the lease rent was sought to be enhanced as per Ext.P2 order dated 12.7.2010 passed by the second respondent. The petitioner has preferred an appeal against Ext.P2, which however, was not in the prescribed form and hence the petitioner was asked to have it filed in the proper form, pursuant to which Ext.P5 appeal has been preferred by the petitioner. 3.Heard the learned Special Government Pleader as well, who submits that the idea in understanding the petitioner as to the applicability of the relevant enactment and also as to the power to have the lease rent enhanced is quite wrong and W.P.(C).17574/11 2 misconceived. It is also stated that, the fact whether Ext.P5 appeal is still pending , is to be ascertained. 4.After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the matter could be disposed of, directing the first respondent to have Ext.P5 considered and finalized in accordance with law, within a reasonable time, if the same is still pending. 5.Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to consider Ext.P5 and pass final orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if the same is still pending, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Enforcement of Ext.P6 seeking to realize the amount stated as due, shall be kept in abeyance till such time. 6.Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for taking further steps. Writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs