IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 22495 of 2007(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.U. PADMANABHAN, AGED 68, S/O. UTHAMAN P.K., PERUMPALATH HOUSE, NARAKKAL. BY ADV. MR.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOCHI. 3. TAHSILDAR, KOCHI. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, PUTHUVAIPPU. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.22495/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE FORM OF ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT ON REGISTRY LETTER DT. 28.1.76 ISSUED BY PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 25.3.77 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DT. 27.11.95 ISUED BY PETITIONER. P4:- COPY OF THE PETITIOIN BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR REVENUE SUBMITTED BY PETITIOENR DTD. 6.2.01. P5:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 27.2.01 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P6:- COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DTD. 3.3.01 ISSUED BY PETITIONER. P7:- COPY OF THE P.L.P. NO.70/03 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY BY FILING. P8:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 1.9.04 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT.D 14.9.04 OF THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY. R3(a):- COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE PETITIONER MADE BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR, KOCHI DTD. 9.3.01. R3(b):- COPY OF THE CANCELLATION ORDER DT. 16.3.01. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.22495 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be an Ex-serviceman. By Ext.P1 order issued as early as on 18.1.1976, he assigned an extent of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.1687/2 of Elamkunnapuzha Village which was in his possession. According to the petitioner, by Ext.P2 the charges due thereunder were also remitted. Thereafter by Ext.P3 order issued on 27.11.1995 petitioner was called upon to remit the market value. However, the same was not quantified and therefore was not remitted. 2. While he was making representations for issuing Patta, he was issued Ext.P5 show cause notice calling upon him to show cause why Ext.P1 shall not be cancelled, on the basis that he was not eligible for free assignment of land. It appears that, in the meanwhile petitioner made a WP(c).No.22495/07 2 fresh application for assignment on payment of market value and that the same was being processed. In view of this, by Ext.R3(a) dated 9.3.2001 petitioner agreed for cancellation of Ext.P1 order of assignment. According to the Government Pleader acting upon Ext.R3(a) Ext.P1 was cancelled. 3. Still there has not been any progress on the application made by the petitioner, which was processed as Case No.18113/1993. Petitioner there upon submitted Ext.P7 complaint to the District Legal Services Authority. In that proceedings the District Collector, RDO Fort Cochin and the Village Officer Puthuvyppin were parties. During the pendency of Ext.P7 proceedings, the District Collector issued Ext.P8 order stating that the petitioner could be assigned 90 cents of land for Rs.8,379/- per are. When Ext.P8 was issued, recording Ext.P8, the District Legal Services Authority closed Ext.P7 proceedings, by Ext.P9 order issued on 14.9.2004. 4. Subsequently also there was no progress. That make the petitioner to approach this court by filing WP(c). WP(c).No.22495/07 3 No.31224/06, which was disposed of by Ext.P11 judgment dated 28th November, 2006 directing that the 3rd respondent therein, the Tahsildar Fort cochin shall verify the documents and if found correct issue Patta to the petitioner. It was further directed that, if for any reason Patta is declined, a detailed order shall be issued, giving reasons thereof, after hearing the Petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was called for a personal hearing as per Ext.P10 and thereafter, relying on Ext.P13 amendment to the the Kerala Land Assignment (Rules) 2005, Ext.P12 order was issued stating that the Petitioner is eligible only for assignment of 50 cents. It was there upon that this writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P10 and for directing the respondent to assign the land as mentioned in Ext.P8 proceedings of the District Collector on the basis of which Ext.P9 proceedings were issued by the District Legal Services Authority. 5. The contention of the Government Pleader is that Ext.P8 does not reflect assignment of any land and that before WP(c).No.22495/07 4 assignment was ordered, the Kerala Land Assignment Rules were amended by Ext.P13. It is stated that once Rules were amended, subsequent assignments can only be in terms of of the Rules as amended. 6. On facts, I see no reason to decline relief to the petitioner. As already seen, by Ext.P1 order of assignment issued as early as on 18.1.1976, petitioner was assigned one acre of land in his possession and the records show that he had developed the land by planting coconut trees. By Ext.R3 (a) referred to above, petitioner agreed for its cancellation as his application for assignment on payment of market value was being processed by the authorities. When he moved the District Legal Services Authority, during its pendency, the District Collector issued Ext.P8 order dated 1.9.2004 reflecting the willingness of the Revenue Department to assign 90 cents of land. Accepting the said proceedings, the District Legal Services Authority also disposed of the proceedings by Ext.P9 dated 14.9.2004. Therefore, by Exts.P8 and P9, in my view, the WP(c).No.22495/07 5 right of the petitioner for assignment of the land as mentioned in Ext.P8 stands recognized. If that be so, his entitlement should have been reckoned as on the date of Ext.P9 proceedings, namely, 14.9.2004. So any amendment to the Rules effected in 2005 and applied against the petitioner in Ext.P12 order, can be of no relevance in the petitioner's case. If so, the view taken by the 3rd respondent in Ext.P12 that the petitioner's entitlement will be covered by Ext.P13 Rules cannot be upheld and is set aside. 7. Accordingly, I dispose of the Writ Petition directing that the respondent shall implement Exts.P8 and P9 in the light of the observations herein above and appropriate orders in this behalf shall be passed in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.22495/07 6