IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22526 of 2010(S) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- VISALAKSHY, COLONY NO.12, EDAKKADU P.O. POORUVAZHY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SUNIL KUMAR (IDUKKI) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM, 3. TAHASILDAR, KUNNATHOOR TALUK. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, POORUVAZHY. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.22526 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. The writ petition is filed with the prayers as follows: “i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take appropriate steps to stop all the illegal transferring of land at Edakkad Colony. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext-P3 complaint. iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The writ petition is supposed to have been filed in public interest atleast going by the indication in the docket of the writ petition. The petitioner claims that she is a resident of the Edakkadu Colony in Pooravazhy Village. Apart from that no further WP(C) No.22526 of 2010 - 2 - information regarding the occupation of the petitioner is available from the records. A cryptic petition running to 4 pages with vague and bald assertions is filed. The gist of the assertion is that lands assigned by the State of Kerala in favour of the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are being purchased by some undescribed persons at low rates and are being resold thereby making a large profit. It appears from the pleadings before us that the petitioner made such complaints to the various respondents herein, i.e. respondents 2 to 4, on 30th January, 2010 (Ext.P1) and a further complaint (Ext.P3) to the first respondent on 4th March, 2010. Complaining that the respondents are not taking any action on the abovementioned complaints of the petitioner, the instant writ petition is filed. 3. No specific details regarding the persons who purchased the assigned lands are made in the writ petition. Nor is there any information available as to the dates of such WP(C) No.22526 of 2010 - 3 - purchases or description of the properties which are purchased. Nor the complaints made by the petitioner (which are filed as exhibits herein) contain any such details except a vague allegation in Exts.P1 and P3 that one Mr.Joseph P.George and his family residing at Punnileth, Kadambanadu is enjoying 7 acres of land. Relevant portion of Ext.P3 reads as follows: “Thus one Mr.Joseph.P.George and his family residing at Punnileth Kadambanad enjoying 7 acres of land. After achieved patta from revenue department he sold 1 acre 35 cents of land for 23 lakhs. Mr.Joseph.P.George also gave the buyer 2.5 acres of revenue land. One C.P.M. Leader from this place helped Mr.Joseph.P.George for this incident. Balance 4 acres of land he himself enjoying till now. Now he is buying for getting patta for this land. Smt.Syamala and her son Prasad, Prasad Bhavanam, Edakkad Colony junction also made this type of an agreement and enjoying about 2 acres of land. If you inquire about this you can see several similar incidents.” 4. There is no averment that the abovementioned Joseph P.George or his family members have violated any law, WP(C) No.22526 of 2010 - 4 - even assuming that they are in actual possession of 7 acres of land. Mere possession of 7 acres of land to the best of our knowledge is not a prohibited activity in this country. 5. Confronted with the question as to whether there is any law which prohibits alienation of lands assigned by the State either in favour of communities known as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes or any other category of persons, learned counsel for the petitioner refereed to the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. But Rule 8(1) of the said Rules reads as follows: “8. Conditions of assignment on registry.- (1) Lands, granted on registry shall be heritable and alienable.” 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the said Rule underwent an amendment and produced a copy of the Gazette of the State of Kerala dated 24th January, 2009. It appears from the gazette notification that the amendment was made pursuant to the power conferred under Section 7 of the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960. The amendment came into WP(C) No.22526 of 2010 - 5 - force with the publication in the gazette. The relevant portion of the gazette notification reads as follows: “2. Amendment of the Rules.--- In the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964.-- xxxx xxxx (2) in rule 8.-- (i) in sub-rule (1).-- (a) for the words “and alienable” the words “but not alienable for a period of twenty-five years from the date of registry” shall be substituted.” 7. It can be seen from the amendment that the lands granted on registry were though heritable and alienable initially under the 1964 Rules, by virtue of the 2009 amendment, there is a restriction on the alienation of such lands for a period of 25 years from the date of registry. Even the amended Rules do not prohibit alienation for eternity. All that the amended Rules seek to prohibit is alienation of the assigned lands (granted on registry) for a period of 25 years from the date of registry. WP(C) No.22526 of 2010 - 6 - 8. Even taking the vague allegations contained in Exts.P1 and P3 against Mr.Joseph P.George are to be stretched to their limit that the abovementioned Joseph P.George is in possession and enjoyment of 7 acres of assigned land unless there is a clear pleading as to what exactly is the date of assignment and in whose favour the said assignment is made, it is not possible to make any further enquiry into the matter. If the assignments were made prior to the date of the amendment to the Rules, the limitation imposed under the amendment on the alienation of the lands is not applicable to such lands in view of the decision of this Court in Bhaskaan v. State of Kerala (2010 (2) KLT 908). 9. In the background of the above narration, we are of the opinion that the instant writ petition is a sheer abuse of the process of this Court, the motive being an unhealthy interest in publicity or some personal grievance against somebody. The writ petition is therefore dismissed at the admission stage with WP(C) No.22526 of 2010 - 7 - costs quantified at Rupees ten thousand to be paid to the Kerala Legal Services Authority within a period of two weeks from today failing which the Secretary of the Kerala Legal Service Authority shall be at liberty to recover the same in accordance with law from the writ petitioner. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns