IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25633 of 2007(B) ----------------------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DTD. 12/04/2007 IN COMPLAINT NO.374/06 OF THE HON'BLE LOK AYUKTA) .............. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------- THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IDUKKI, CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU, IDUKKI. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. M.R.SABU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA LOK AYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, LEGISLATIVE COMPLEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. C.M. KURIAKOSE, CHAMAKKALAYIL HOUSE, VANNAPPURAM POST, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI. *ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED: R3. THRESSIAMMA, W/O.LATE MATHEW, AGED 75, RESIDING AT CHOORAKUZHIYIL (NEDUMTHADATHIL) HOUSE, VANNAPURAM KARA, THODUPUZHA (EAST) P.O. (*ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 18/03/2008 IN I.A.NO.3660/08) R2 BY ADV. MR.MATHEW JOHN (K), MR.SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. ADDL.R3 BY ADVS.MR.S.SREEKUMAR, MR.TOM THOMAS, MR.GIGIMON ISSAC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.25633/2007 B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 12/04/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD. 4/07/1995. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER DTD. 11/07/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PHOTO SHOWING THE SHOP BEING CONDUCTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AT PALA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES: EXT.R2(A): COPY OF THE CHALAN DTD. 16/12/1995. EXT.R2(B): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29/07/2002. EXT.R2(C): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 28/09/2002. EXT.R2(D): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 4/10/2002. EXT.R2(E): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 24/07/2004 BY THE RDO,IDUKKI. EXT.R2(F): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(A): COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.67 OF 1973 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, THODUPUZHA. EXT.R3(B): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.874 OF 1974 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM DTD. 05/06/1978. EXT.R3(C): COPY OF ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE FROM 01/01/1993 TO 26/02/2008. EXT.R3(D): COPY OF APPLICATION DTD. 18/10/2007. EXT.R3(E); COPY OF RESURVEY SKETCH IN SY.NO.1478/1A OF VAMANAPPURAM VILLAGE. EXT.R3(F); COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING 1 ACRE 34 CENTS. ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE WILL DTD. 9/09/1980. ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE SALE DEED DTD. 29/04/2004. ANNEXURE C: COPY OF THE SALE DEED DTD. 17/09/1993. ANNEXURE D: COPY OF THE SALE DEED DTD. 17/09/1993. /TRUE COPY/ Kss PA..TO JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.25633 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT The Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki, is the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the direction issued by the Lok Ayuktha in Ext.P1 order, the R.D.O has approached this Court. 2. The 2nd respondent applied for assignment of land having an extent of 1.34 acres in Survey No. 1478/1A of Vannappuram Village The assignment proceedings was kept in abeyance in view of the request of Vannapuram Grama Panchayahth to reserve the above land for public purposes. Again the 2nd respondent filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki,(petitioner herein) on 4.12.2003 requesting to issue patta in his favour. Accordingly by proceedings No. B2-3827/2003 dated 24.7.2004 the R.D.O ordered that since the annual income of the 2nd respondent (applicant) was above the prescribed limit he was not eligible to get patta at a concessional rate and that the patta may be issued on a fresh application, if the applicant is wiling to remit the market value. Accordingly the 2nd respondent filed a fresh application for assignment before the Tahsildar and the said application had been forwarded to the Village Officer Vannapuram for verification and report. It is reported by the Village Officer that the re-survey works in Vannapuram village were not yet completed and only on getting resurvey records, the W.P.(C) 25633 of 2007 -2- land could be identified, the sketch and Mahazar prepared, that the records related to assignable lands available in Vannapuram Village were also not complete and that for the said reasons the assignment steps in Vannapuram Village were put off temporarily. In the report it was also stated that the District Collector Idukki has taken steps to issue directions to the Deputy Director of Survey, idukki to complete the field correction urgently and that the re-survey work was in progress. 3. The Tahsildar, Thodupuzha in his report No.C3-8320/01 dated 11.7.2007 stated that the 2nd respondent is not eligible to get the land under the concessional rate as he is very rich and running a Textile Showroom in Pala town namely “Chamakalayil Silks” The 2nd respondent expressed his willingness to get the land assigned in his favour after paying the market value of the land. It was also reported by the Tahsildar that the land applied for assignment situated is in close proximity to Thodupuzha town and the market value of the said land is estimated at the rate of Rs. 1 lakh per Cent . The Tahsildar took the stand that since the re-survey work has not been completed in Vannappuram Village, the land intended for assignment for inclusion in the assignable list could not be ascertained at this stage. 4. Being aggrieved by the the above said decision of the Tahsildar the 2nd respondent filed a complaint before the Lok Ayukta. Ext.P1 is the order passed by the Lok Ayukta . In Ext.P1 the Lok Ayukta W.P.(C) 25633 of 2007 -3- directed the R.D.O to complete the assignment proceedings in favour of the 2nd respondent herein and to file action take report or to appear in person to explain the matter and the case was posted to 24.5.2007. Subsequent to the said order the Government prayed for extension of time, the Lok Ayukta allowed the same and the case is posted to 28.8.2007. 5. Another reason stated by the Tahsildar is that on 4.5.1995 the Vannapuram Grama Panchayath has passed a resolution to the effect that the land in question is needed for public purposes namely for establishment of taxi stand , market etc and the Grama Panchayath has also requested the R.D.O not to assign the land in favour of the 2nd respondent . Ext.P2 is the resolution passed by the Grama Panchayath 6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that under the Land Assignment Act and Rules 1964 when a Government property is needed for public purposes the same cannot be assigned in favour of a private individual. He also brought to my notice the report of the Tahsildar Thodupuzha dated 11.7.2007 addressed to the Sub Collector idukki which reveals that the property in question is not an assignable one and that the 2nd respondent is not entitled to get assignment .Ext.P3 is the said report dated 11.7.2007 submitted by the Tahsildar. In the report it was also stated that the maximum extent assignable is 50 Cents to eligible persons. 7. The 3rd respondent, another claimant of the disputed property W.P.(C) 25633 of 2007 -4- was impleaded during the pendency of this writ petition. According to the 3rd respondent ,while she was in an unconscious state due to serious heart ailments the 2nd respondent and his father obtained her signature in certain documents and created an agreement for sale as well as sale deeds .The 3rd respondent is the erstwhile owner of the adjacent property of the disputed land. She had applied for patta for the disputed land and the said application is pending before the Tahsildar. It is also contended by her that the 2nd respondent who is a jenmi of the adjacent property of 3 acres and 97 cents of land is trying to dispossess her from the property . The 3rd respondent got patta for the 3.97 acres and she subsequently sold it to the 2nd respondent. 8. In this Context it is pertinent to note the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Varkey Abraham Vs. Secretary to Government reported in 2007(3) KLT 702 in which it is held that: The various provisions in the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act and the Kerala Land Assignment Rules would unmistakably show that the Act and Rules are intended to protect landless people by assigning to them Government lands for cultivation and other purposes. The act provides for assignment of Government land absolutely or subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as may be prescribed . The Rules provides for assignment of lands on registry for purposes of personal cultivation. The Rules also provides for granting assignment of small extents of land for constructing W.P.(C) 25633 of 2007 -5- houses and for the beneficial enjoyment of adjoining registered holdings. The Rules contain provisions for extending priority to landless people, members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Ex- servicemen, persons disabled in active military service, persons who are dependents of those who are killed or disabled while in active military service , small holders whose family income is less than Rs.10,000/- certain category in kumkidars etc. The Procedure for assignment is also provided in the Rules. Provision is made for preparing the lists of lands to be reserved for Government or public purposes and the lands to be set apart for assignment on registry. The lists are to be approved by the Government or an authorized authority. The authority to approve the list of lands available for lease or licence shall be District Collector . Various authorities are also provided to whom the applications under the different categories are to be submitted. We are of the view that the Act and Rules are not intended for enriching persons who hold extensive lands. Assignment on Registry of Government lands to such persons would defeat the very purpose of the Act and Rules. There is no vested right in any person to claim assignment on registry of Government land. The claim made by the petitioner originated and continued on encroachment. Such a person cannot have any legal right to claim that land. Provision for assignment of lands to encroachers is with a specific purpose It is intended to protect such of the encroachers who are landless and downtrodden They too have no vested right to get assignment on registry. The scheme of the Act and the Rules would unmistakably show it. Mighty people do not come anywhere near the W.P.(C) 25633 of 2007 -6- benevolent protective umbrella of the Act and Riles. True, a person may desire to annex to his property the neighbouring lands, though it is Government land. Such a desire is not recognised or protected under the Act and Rules. 9. At present, the matter is pending before the Tahsildar. When the application under the Land Assignment Act and Rules 1964 is pending consideration before the Tahsildar, it is not known why the 2nd respondent approached the Lok Ayukta for a direction to the R.D.O for assignment of the disputed land in his favour. Before assignment of a land there are many formalities to be followed. In this case so many factors are to be considered i.e the Grama Panchayath's resolution to the effect that the land has to be reserved for public purposes, non-completion of the re- survey works,and the claim of the disputed land by the 3rd respondent etc. So the order passed by the Lok Ayukta directing the R.D.O to complete the assignment proceedings in favour of the 2nd respondent and to file an action taken report is unsustainable in law. In this context there is no justification in directing the R.D.O to complete the land Assignment Proceedings by the Lok Ayukta. It is evident that the 2nd respondent is resorting to short cut and by-pass methods to prosecute the complaint in wrong forums. Whatever may be the reason, the direction issued to the R.D.O is erroneous and unsustainable in law. The Tahsildar shall pass orders in those applications in accordance with the provisions of Land W.P.(C) 25633 of 2007 -7- Assignment Act and Rules 1964, within a period of 9 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment . In the light of this judgment the R.D.O can seek dismissal of the complaint pending before the Lok Ayukta. In the result ,this writ petition is allowed Ext.P1 order is quashed (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No.25633 of 2007 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 6th April, 2009