IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20897 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. PARVATHY, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O.ANDY APPU, KAITHACHIRA HOUSE, KAYARADY P.O., NENMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678001. 2. ANDY APPU, S/O.VELLA, KAITHACHIRA HOUSE, KAYARADY P.O., NENMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678001. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKADU. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTOOR TALUK OFFICE, PALAKKADU DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAYARADY VILLAGE OFFICE, KAYARADY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 20897 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 14th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioners claim to have purchased 3 acres and 45 cents of Government land from another occupier of that land. According to the petitioners, in accordance with Ext. P1 Government Order dated 21-3-1979, the petitioners are entitled to assignment of the said 3.45 acres of land, which they claim to be in their possession. Their grievance in this writ petition is that contrary to Ext. P1 order, Ext. P 7 order has been passed by the District Collector demanding from them amounts for excess of what has been prescribed in Ext. P1 and the area assigned also has been reduced to 2.32 acres. Therefore, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: “i) Call for the records pertaining to Ext. P7 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari; ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to assign 3 acre 45 cents of land comprised in Sy. No. 869/1 in Kayarady village to the petitioners.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. As I have already stated, the petitioners raise two grounds against Ext. P7. First is that more amount than what is payable as per Ext. P1 has been demanded from them as per Ext. P7. Second is that the area assignable has been reduced to 2.32 acres. 4. As far as the first contention is concerned, the same is governed by clauses (i) and (ii) of Ext. P1, which read thus: “(i) The unauthorised transfer of plots partly or in full by allottee will be regularised on payment by the purchasers and arrears due from the allottee including interest in full in quarterly instalments. If the purchasers do not agree to these conditions, the land will be resumed. W.P.C. No. 20897/2010 -: 2 :- (ii) The encroachments will be regularised after realising the full value of the land in four quarterly instalments. If the encroachers are not willing to abide by these conditions, the encorachments will be evicted.” Going by those clauses, it is abundantly clear that the petitioners are liable to pay the balance arrears due from the allottee including interest in full as also full value of the land for regularisation of the encroachment. On a reading of Ext. P7, I am of opinion that what has been demanded is only those amounts. Of course, the District Collector could have made it more clear. But, a reading of the last two paragraphs of Ext. P7 together would make it clear that what has been demanded is only the amounts payable as per the above said clauses in Ext. P1. 5. As far as the second contention is concerned, Kerala is a State which is finding it difficult to give land to landless people for the reason that Government land is in short supply. The Government has been promising lands to the tribals for decades. Government is unable to find out enough land to keep their promises to the tribals. The Rules regarding assignment do not stipulate that the applicants for assignment should be given assignment of the entire land to which they have laid their claim. Only the maximum land assignable is proscribed, I am of opinion that in view of paucity of land available, only the minimum required shall be assigned to the applicants. In the petitioners' case, they have been given 2.32 acres, which according to me, is more than what the Government should have assigned to the petitioners. W.P.C. No. 20897/2010 -: 3 :- Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.