IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 1575 of 2002(K) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 55 YEARS, SON OF RAHUMAN MOHAMMED ISMAIL, GRAND HANDLOOM CENTRE, PAZHAVANGADI,EAST FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SMT.N.SUDHADEVI THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 9775 OF 2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.2775/2002 IN OP NO.1575/2002 DISMISSED: 8.2.2008 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: P1: DT.12.3.1984 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY R1.16 P2: DT.19.1.1974 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY R1 EXTENDING THE LEASE PERIOD IN RESPECT OF KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. P3: DT.20.5.1985 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY R1 FIXING THE LAND VALUE IN RESPECT OF LAND OCCUPIED BY BALARAMAPURAM SUPPLY AND MARKETING CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY. P4: DT.26.2.96 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF KUTHAKAPATTOM IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SURVEY NO.659 OCCUPIED BYPETITIONER. P5: DT.22.11.1975 TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY R1 TO R2 ALLOWING THE PETITIONER TO CONTINUE ON KUTHAKAPPATTOM IN SY. NO.659 OF VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE. P6: DT.6.2.1995 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY R3 TO THE PETITIONER. P7: DT. .3.95 TRUE COPY OF REPLY BY THE PETITIONER TO R3. P8: DT.9.6.1998 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF LEASE. P9: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY R2 TO THE PETITIONER. P10: DT.18.7.2001 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R2. P11: DT.23.7.2001 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY R3. P12: DT.24.7.2001 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1 PRAYING FOR SETTING ASIDE EXT.P9. P13: DT.1.1.2002 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE RECEIVED FROM R3 INTIMATING THE ATTACHMENT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES OF PETITIONER. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.1575 of 2002 & W.P.(C) No.9775 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 8th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT These connected writ petitions are filed by same person who is lessee in around 3 cents of Government land located in the prime area in Trivandrum i.e. in East Fort. The date of commencement of the lease is not on record. However, it is seen that lease rent was increased from time to time based on market value of the land periodically fixed. When petitioner contested fixation of market value at Rs.25,000/- per cent in 1983, it was reduced to Rs.20,000/- per cent and petitioner has been paying rent at that rate till 1996. However, in 1995 when the market value was increased to Rs.2.5 lakhs per cent and the rent demanded based on this value, petitioner questioned the same and the matter is ultimately carried to this court. It is reported that prior to fixation of value at Rs.2.5 lakhs, it was raised on two occasions in 1993 and 1994. Petitioner's case is that lease rent can be fixed only once in 12 years under Rule 8(4) of the Kuthakappattam Rules. Petitioner has a further case that along with petitioner other lessees which are co-operative societies are occupying Government land in the same survey number and their lease is renewed on payment of lower rate of lease 2 rent than what is demanded from the petitioner. 2. The challenge against fixation of market value of land at Rs.2.5 lakhs per cent in 1994 is only to be rejected because the land is located in prime area in Trivandrum. If petitioner is not willing to pay the lease rent at the revised rate, he can vacate the premises, so that Government can lease it out to another person. In the course of last 12 years, market value would have gone up several multiples of the value fixed in 1995. It is upto the Revenue authorities to refix the market value and demand lease rentals at current rates. Even though petitioner's challenge against demand of revised rate of lease rent on ground of discrimination may not be tenable because other lessees are societies marketing Handloom products, still it is the duty of the Government to ensure that fair lease rentals are collected from societies, failing which land should be repossessed and given to other parties for realisation of better rent as the Government should get reasonable return from valuable Government land for it's own purposes. It is reported that pursuant to interim orders of this court petitioner has made substantial payment of arrears even though substantial amount is still due. Government Pleader submitted that petitioner is found to have encroached adjoining land and made unauthorised construction in such land. It is for the District Collector to evict the petitioner from unauthorised occupation or 3 otherwise to regularise the lease for the extended period at the time of renewal, but after collecting lease rentals for the period petitioner was in possession of the land. Since this court has not interfered with fixation of market value at Rs.2.5 lakhs per cent in 1995, the petitioner is bound to clear the arrears of rent payable as of now. Having regard to the amount involved, petitioner is granted instalments to clear the arrears due as of now as follows. One third should be paid on or before 25.5.2008 and balance in four equal monthly instalments payable on or before the 25th of the four succeeding months. Besides this, regular lease rentals should be paid on due dates. The District Collector is directed to refix the market value after conducting inspection and after taking into account the location and importance of the area for the purpose of business and renew the lease for such period as is permissible under the relevant rules. Since the petitioner has alleged that the neighbouring societies are paying normal rates, there will be direction to the Collector to consider the same and ensure that fair returns are obtained for use of Government land by any agency. The petitioner will produce copy of this judgment for compliance. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms