IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3389 of 2008(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- N.P.THANKACHAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.PHILIPOSE, NEDUNGOTTUKUDIYIL HOUSE, LAVANAPAADAM, KORANCHIRA P.O., KIZJAKKANCHERI - 1 VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NISHIN GEORGE VIJAYABABU SMT.ANNAMMA PHILIP SRI.BIJU JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. REVENUE SECRETARY, STATE OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD. 3. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR. 4. SARAHKUTTY @ SARAAMMA, W/O.LATE M.V.MATHAI, KIZJAKKANCHERRY - 1 VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. WP(C).No. 3389 of 2008 :: 2 :: 5. JAISON MATHEW, S/O.LATE M.V.MATHAI, KIZJAKKANCHERI - 1 VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. JACOB MATHEW, S/O.LATE M.V.MATHAI, KIZJAKKANCHERI - 1 VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 7. JOLLY MATHEW, D/O.LATE M.V.MATHAI, OFF KIZJAKKANCHERI - 1 VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 8. JESSY MATHEW, D/O.LATE M.V.MATHAI, OFF KIZJAKKANCHERI - 1 VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C).No.3389 of 2008 ---------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner submits that he entered into an agreement for lease of 1.9381 hectares of land in Alathur Taluk with respondents 4 and 5. Respondents 4 to 8 are the legal representatives of one Mathai, who expired in 2006. As per the lease agreement, petitioner could cultivate paddy during Kanni and Makara months and also take the rubber from the 150 rubber trees therein. The lease was for a period of 11 months. Accordingly he was in enjoyment of the property since the commencement of the lease which is dated 7.3.2007. Apparently, Mathai was a defaulter of sales tax and therefore, the department initiated steps in relation to the properties left behind by Mathai. They also issued notice to the Legal representatives, which is evidenced by Exts.P3 and P4. The petitioner has approached this court seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere with the petitioner's right to take the usufructs from the property referred to in Ext.P1 till the expiry of the lease period. W.P.(C).NO.3389/08 :: 2 :: 2. In my view, the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain any action as regards the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act inasmuch as the property belongs to the 4th respondent. Petitioner does not have any interest over the property. Ext.P1 lease agreement is admittedly not a registered document. At any rate, it is a moot question as to whether the lease itself can be accepted as valid in view of Section 74 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which prohibits a lease of agricultural property. Revenue recovery action initiated against the Legal representatives of Mathai, who is a defaulter of Sales Tax, cannot be resisted or interfered with by the petitioner. Writ petition is bereft of merit and hence dismissed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge