IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 21321 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- FREE MASON'S LODGE, QUILON NO.5839 E.C, KOLLAM - 691 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.K.VINOD KUMAR, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, RESIDING AT " MEGHAVYA ", KOCHUPILAMOODU, MUNDAKKAL WEST WARD, MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM - 691 001. BY ADV. SRI.K.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN - 695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 21321 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a trust. They claim to be a secular, fraternal and charitable organization committed for rendering service to the society, functioning within the accepted constitution framed for the trust. It claims to be part of an international organization. They were given lease of certain Government land. They are now under threat of termination of the lease and resumption of the land. According to the petitioner, they have invoked the powers of the Government under Rule 21 of the Assignment of Land Within Municipal and Corporation Areas Rules 1995 for assignment of the land to them. The petitioner also filed a suit, OS No.813/2009 before the Sub Court, Kollam, seeking injunction against the respondents from interfering or causing hindrances to the use of the property and from taking forceful possession. The petitioner submits that it is illegal and unjust to resume the land while the application of the petitioner for assignment of the land in their favour is pending. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs; “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, directions or orders directing the respondents not to take any steps to evict the petitioner from the property comprised in Re.sy.No.18 in Block No.149 of Mundakkal Village in Kollam, which is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner by virtue of Kuthakapattom No.91 of 1965. ii) Declare that the respondents cannot forcefully evict the petitioner from the property comprised in Re.sy.No.18 in Block No.149 of Mundakkal Village in Kollam. w.p.c.21321/10 2 iii) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to be in possession and enjoyment of the property comprised in Re.sy.No.18 in Block No.149 of Mundakkal Village in Kollam as long as the Kuthakapattom given to the petitioner vide 91/1965 is in fore and is valid.” 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the the learned Government Pleader. 3. Admittedly the petitioner is holding the land on lease granted by the Government. The petitioner cannot claim to be in perpetual possession of the property on lease insofar as the land is Government land. It is for the Government to decide as to whether the lease should be continued or whether the land is to be resumed. In respect thereof the petitioner has also invoked jurisdiction of the civil court and, therefore, for the same, the petitioner cannot file a writ petition as well. As far as the claim of the petitioner for assignment of land under the Rule 21 of the Assignment of Land Within Municipal and Corporation Areas Rules, 1995, is concerned, I do not think that they can, as of right, claim consideration of the application for assignment under Rule 21 of the Rules, which reads thus: “21. Special provisions regarding assignment.- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Government may:- (i) authorise any officer to exercise the powers and functions which may be exercised by the Assigning Authority; and (ii) if they consider it necessary so to do in public interest, assign land subject to such terms and conditions, if any, as may be imposed.” w.p.c.21321/10 3 That is an enabling provision enabling the Government to assign land in public interest subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed if the Government considers it necessary. That provision does not vest the petitioner with any right for applying for assignment of land as such, so as to seek a mandamus to the Government to consider the same. I can issue a mandamus only if there is a corresponding duty on the Government, which is absent in this case, especially when it is obvious that the Government does not find any public interest for assigning land to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek a mandamus to the Government to assign land under Rule 21 of the Rules. I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge