IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 23552 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- E.T.DEVASYA, S/O.LATE THOMAS, AGED 67 YEARS, ILLIKKAL HOUSE, PALAKKAYAM P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, (SUB COLLECTOR), OTTAPPALAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, MANNARKKAD. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAKKAYAM VILLAGE, MANNARKKAD. 6. THACHAMPARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THACHAMPARA, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1-5 SRI.T.K.ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: dmb WP(C).No. 23552 of 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3689 DATED 25.08.1993 OF SRO, MANNARKKAD P2: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.4447 DATED 28.10.1993 OF SRO, MANNARKKAD P3: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.800 DATED 8.2.1995 OF SRO, MANNARKKAD P4: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 1.3.1999 OBTAINED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAKKAYAM P5: COPY OF THE LOCATION AND LOCATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAKKAYAM P6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 16.1.2003 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, MANNARKKAD P7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G2/34977 DATED 3.12.2003 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR P8: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18.12.2003 DATED GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER FOR ASSIGNMENT P9: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.05.2004 IN W.P(C) NO.16040/2004 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT P10: COPY OF TH DECISION NO.6(1) DATED 31.8.2004 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH P11: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/8952/03 DATED 1.9.2004 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, MANNARKKAD P12: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DIS.3052/04 DATED 17.6.2006 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT P13: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.A1/140/2006 DATED 17.01.2007 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH P14: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 2.02.2007 WP(C).No. 23552 of 2008 P15: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 28.3.2008 P16: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A1/69/04 DATED 4.04.2008 AND THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH IN THEIR LETTER DATED 15.5.2008 P16(a):COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10.4.2008 P17: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L/RJ/3.5910/07 DATED 21.04.2008 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER P18: COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER RULE 21(9) OF THE KERALA LAND ASSIGNMENT RULES P19: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.32404/L1/08/RD DATED 8.7.2008 PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 23552 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The proceedings culminating in Ext.P19 originated from Ext.P8 application made by the petitioner, for the assignment of 164 Sq. Mtrs. of land, which consist of a portion of his building a well and four coconut trees. The application was rejected by Ext.P11 order of the Tahsildar, which was confirmed in the appeal as per Ext.P12. Petitioner carried the matter revision before the Land Revenue Commissioner. The Land Revenue Commissioner also rejected the revision by Ext.P17 order. This order to the extent, its relevant portion reads as under:- “ The hearing of the case was conducted on 29.3.2008. The revision petitioner was present. He argued that he has no other dwelling place and the land has to be assigned to him. Since the land in question is 'Puzha puramboke' the consent of Panchayat is necessary for assigning the land. The Thachampara Panchayat has not given any consent so far. So also it is pertinent to note that the puzha puramboke is to be divested before assigning the land. In this circumstances the revision petition is rejected.” W.P.(C).No. 23552 OF 2008 2 2. Against Ext.P17, petitioner filed further revision before the Government which was dismissed by Ext.P19 order as not maintainable. It is in these circumstances, writ petition is filed. 3. As far as Ext.P19 order is concerned, admittedly there is no provision for further revision in the Kerala Land Assignments Rules. In that view of the matter, Ext.P19 cannot be said to be illegal for any reason. 4. In so far as, Ext.P17 order of the Land Revenue Commissioner is concerned, reading of the order shows that it is on the basis that the land is a puzha puramboke vested in the Panchayath and that the 6th respondent Panchayath has not consented for its assignment, the revision was dismissed. However, counsel for the petitioner referred to Ext.P16 series of documents. It is seen from Ext.P16 that the Panchayath, had passed resolution No.10(1) dated 29.3.2008, agreeing to the assignment of the land in favour of the petitioner. Further, from the Panchayath's letter dated 15.5.2008, it is also seen that the aforesaid resolution of the Panchayath was forwarded to the Land Revenue Commissioner vide letter dated 10.4.2008. That apart, petitioner also submits that, after the hearing on the revision filed W.P.(C).No. 23552 OF 2008 3 by him, he himself produced Ext.P16 (a) along with the resolution of the Panchayath before the Land Revenue Commissioner on 10.4.2008. It is therefore contended that the assumption on the basis of which, his revision was rejected, was factually incorrect and that the order was passed over looking the resolution of the Panchayath, which was already produced before the Land Revenue Commissioner. 5. From the above, it is evident that the only reason which persuaded the Land Revenue Commissioner to decline the assignment sought for the petitioner was absence of consent of the Panchayath for assignment of the puzha puramboke. That assumption of the Land Revenue Commissioner can be seen factually incorrect as per Ext.P16 series of documents. Although, it is the case of the respondents that such a view has been taken on the basis that on a previous occasion, the Panchayath itself had declined the petitioner's application for assignment, still having regard to the fact that the Ext.P16 resolution has been passed by the Panchayath, the previous resolution of Panchayat could not have been relied on. W.P.(C).No. 23552 OF 2008 4 6. Now that, the Ext.P16 resolution have been passed by the Panchayath, which has not been withdrawn by so far, I am satisfied that Ext.P17 order cannot be sustained. 7. In the facts as stated, I hold that the revision which resulted in Ext.P17, filed by the petitioner against Ext.P11 and Ext.P12 will stand allowed and the 4th respondent will pass orders, assigning the land mentioned in Ext.P8 to the petitioner. 8. Orders in which shall be passed as expeditiously as possible at any rate within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE dmb