IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9259 of 2009(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABUDULLA & UMMER ESTATES (P) LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.23, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, CROSS, BANGALORE, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESENT MANAGING DIRECTOR, KURIACHAN CHACKO. BY ADV. SRI.S.VIJAYAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, ERNAKULAM. 2. TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. MR.DILIP MOHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.9259/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 15/12/1969 AND REGISTERED AT ERNAKULAM SUB REGISTRY WITH NO.2468/1969. P2 : COPY OF LEASE DEED DATED 28/12/1979. P3 : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.28189/1999 DATED 28/06/2002. P4 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 16/08/2003. P5 : COPY OF RENEWAL PERMIT DATED 25/02/2009 ISSUED FROM THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN. P6 : COPY OF CHALLAN DATED 17/01/1995 SIGNED BY THE VILLAGE ASSISTANT. P7 : COPY OF ORDER/LETTER DATED 09/02/2009 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.9259 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of September, 2009 ------------------------------ J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed by a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. According to the petitioner, they acquired 20 cents of property situated in Survey Nos.1108 and 1746 of Ernakulam Village. The transferor of the property had acquired title as per Ext.P1 settlement deed. The petitioner got the property mutated in its favour, and it is stated that as per Ext.P6, land tax paid was also accepted. However, the petitioner was later informed by Ext.P7 that ground rent cannot be accepted and the property cannot be alienated. It is thereupon that this writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7. 2. The petitioner's case is that the property was not obtained from the Erstwhile Cochin Maharaja on ground rent basis. According to the petitioner, the grant is absolute and with the right of alienation. 3. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent has filed a WP(C) No.9259/2009 -2- counter affidavit contending that the grant was on ground rent, and therefore, the property is inalienable. However, it can be seen from Ext.P3 judgment rendered by this Court in O.P.No.28189 of 1999, that the case of similar persons, who are also assignees of property acquired on ground rent patta, it has been held that the property is alienable and heritable. If that be so, the view taken in Ext.P7 that the ground rent cannot be accepted from the assignee, viz., the petitioner, and that the property is inalienable is unsustainable. 4. For that reason, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P7, and therefore, Ext.P7 will stand set aside. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg