IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 9263 of 2010(G) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- T.EVARIOS, S/O.TOBIAS, KOTTAPPURATHU VEEDU, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SASTHAMCOTTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SASTHAMCOTTA P.O, KUNNATHUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE, R3 BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER, SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NOS. 10492/2010 AND 11296/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.9263/2010-G: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.3044/1996. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD. 19/04/2006. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUR TO VACATE THE BUILDING. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.16822/2007. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 06/03/2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE PANCHAYATH THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE GRANTED PERMISSION TO OCCUPY THE PREMISES AFTER PAYING RENT DTD. 30/07/2002. EXT.R3.B: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 29/03/1988. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.9263, 10492 & 11296 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T These writ petitions are filed by the persons occupying rooms in a building which, according to the petitioners, is in a revenue puramboke land. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action taken by the Panchayath to claim monthly rent from them. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were earlier issued notices of eviction by the Panchayath, which were under challenge in W.P.(C) No.16822/2007. The said writ petition was disposed of by Exhibit P4 judgment. Therein it was submitted by the learned counsel for the Panchayath that the land is not vested with the Panchayath but with the Government and accordingly, this Court quashed the notices. It is, therefore, contended that the Panchayath cannot direct the petitioners to remit monthly rent as they are not having any right or ownership over the land in question. This is the substantial contention raised by the petitioners. W.P.(C) No.9263/10 & conn. cases 2 3. The Panchayath has filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is pointed out that by Exhibit P1 judgment in an original petition filed by the Panchayath, this Court had directed the Government to decide the contentious issues between the Government and the Panchayath and accordingly, the Government passed Exhibit P2 order. After examining various matters, the Government found that 2.50 Acres of market puramboke land is vested with the Panchayath only for proper maintenance, management and control of the land. The said land has not been transferred to the Panchayath and hence the Panchayath has no claim over the land and other land adjoining to it. 4. It is pointed out that the Panchayath had entered into an agreement with the Government, copy of which is produced as Exhibit R3(b). Thereafter a loan of Rs.2 lakhs was sanctioned by the Government for the construction of Shopping Centre. It is, therefore, pointed out that the Panchayath is having the right for proper maintenance, management and control of the land and building and only in exercise of the said right, the Panchayath has demanded payment of rent from the petitioners. It is also W.P.(C) No.9263/10 & conn. cases 3 submitted that the parties have separately executed agreements with the Panchayath for the rental arrangement and in that view of the matter, they cannot take a stand that the Panchayath cannot demand any rent from the occupiers concerned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the stand of the Panchayath in the counter affidavit cannot be accepted in the light of the explicit stand taken by the Panchayath in the earlier writ petition which was disposed of by Exhibit P4 judgment wherein the Panchayath had stated before this Court that the land is vested with the Government. Therefore it is submitted that now they are estopped from demanding rent. It is therefore submitted that the Panchayath cannot take a different stand in these proceedings and the petitioners want only a proper quietus to the issue and they are not averse to the idea of paying money to the Government also. 6. To appreciate the above contention, we will have to refer to the judgment Exhibit P1. In fact, the said judgment was rendered in an original petition filed by the Panchayath itself. Therein the claim raised by the Panchayath was that the entire W.P.(C) No.9263/10 & conn. cases 4 Puramboke land of 10 Acres and 98 cents is vested with the Panchayath in view of Section 221 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act. This Court did not go into the dispute regarding the question of fact and ultimately directed the Government to look into the matter. Exhibit P2 is the consequential order issued by the Government later. 7. Evidently, the Government was of the view that out of 10 Acres and 98 cents, 2.50 Acres of market puramboke land is vested with the Sasthamkotta Grama Panchayath only for proper maintenance, management and control of the land. The above land was not 'transferred' to the Panchayath. The Government was also of the view that the property is vested with the Panchayath but it was not actually transferred to the Panchayath. Of course, vesting is limited for the purpose of proper maintenance, management and control of the land. 8. Herein, the case is that in exercise of the right of management, tenants were inducted by the Panchayath in the market area after constructing the buildings in the Shopping Centre. Therefore, as the Panchayath is exercising their right of W.P.(C) No.9263/10 & conn. cases 5 management, it was well within their rights to induct tenants. Evidently, they had control of the market area which right has been recognised by the Government in Exhibit P2. It cannot be disputed that in exercise of the said power only they have inducted the tenants. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that the stand taken herein will totally go against the stand taken by the Panchayath which was recorded in Exhibit P4 judgment. Of course, therein the learned counsel for the Panchayath submitted that the Government has decided that the land in question does not vest with the Panchayath. The said statement has to be appreciated in the light of the fact that notices for eviction were under challenge in the said writ petition and the issue was whether it is for the Panchayath or for the Government to take steps to evict the occupants like the petitioners. That does not mean that the right of management which was recognised by the Government as per Exhibit P2 and which includes the right to have proper maintenance and control is anyway whittled down. Further this Court did not restrain the Panchayath from W.P.(C) No.9263/10 & conn. cases 6 proceeding with the steps also. Notices were quashed for violation of principles of natural justice only. 10. Evidently, herein there are agreements executed by various tenants including all the petitioners. Therefore, there is a contractual arrangement between the petitioners and the Panchayath. In that view of the matter, at this stage, the petitioners cannot disclaim the right of management of the Panchayath by contending that the land is not transferred to the Panchayath. In that view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with the demands raised by the Panchayath towards monthly rent. Therefore, these writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. If the petitioners have got any dispute with respect to the quantum of rent claimed by the Panchayath, it will be open to them to file appropriate objections with regard to the same. The petitioners will pay the amount covered by the notices produced in these writ petitions within a period of one month. No costs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp