Kerala High Court
A Sarojini vs State Of Kerala on 12 November, 2015
Author: A.M.Shaffique
Bench: Ashok Bhushan, A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/15TH CHAITHRA, 1938
WA. No.704 of 2016()IN WP(C).5121/2012
------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C)5121/2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 12-11-2015.
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
-----------------------
A SAROJINI,
CHEMBUKUZHI VEEDU,
POTTAYIL,
MALAYANKEEZHU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SMT.K.P.SANTHI
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3. VILAVOORKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
NEYYATINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-04-2016,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
KRJ
ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J &
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.A No.704 of 2016
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 4th day of April, 2016
JUDGMENT
Shaffique, J This appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P(C) No.5121 of 2012 challenging judgment dated 12.11.2015, by which the learned Single Judge did not entertain the writ petition and disposed of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to seek statutory remedies as provided under Rule 21 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964.
2. The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner claiming to be co-owner in possession and enjoyment of 2.04 Ares of land in Vilavoorkal village, Neyyattinkara taluk has sought for assignment of 25 cents of land on the ground that the petitioner and her predecessor was in possession and in occupation of the land for last several years. In fact, the petitioner's predecessor had filed a suit for declaration of WA.704/16 -:2:- title and for injunction as O.S No.1065/1983 before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The suit was dismissed and the prayer for declaration was rejected. However, it was observed that the petitioner shall not be evicted unless steps are taken in accordance with law. The decree became final though the petitioner preferred appeal and second appeal.
3. This Court in second appeal, however, observed that disposal of the suit shall not preclude the petitioner from seeking assignment of 25 cents of land. Pursuant to the said observation, application was filed which was rejected as per order issued by the Government on 6.7.2005 (Ext.P4). In Ext.P4 order, the Government had indicated that the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram has reported that the said land is rocky puramboke and hence, not transferable or assignable as per the existing rules.
4. In the meantime, the petitioner had come to know that certain item of land has been assigned in favour of the third respondent Panchayat in terms of Ext.P5 order dated 30.7.2010. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court challenging WA.704/16 -:3:- Exts.P4 and P5. The petitioner relied on Ext.P6 report, by which the Village Officer had opined that the petitioner and her predecessor are residing in the property and there are three houses in 16.20 Ares of land in R.S. No.384/12. According to the petitioner, the property is not a rocky puramboke and the petitioner and her predecessor were carrying on agricultural operations in the land. This fact has been completely ignored while passing Ext.P4 order by the Government. That apart, steps were taken by the Government to assign a non-assignable land to the Panchayat and in such view of the matter, Government ought to have granted assignment of 25 cents of land on the ground that it is required for a house site and for the beneficial enjoyment of the property.
5. The learned Single Judge having taken into consideration the factual aspects involved in the matter, observed that in so far as the Government have complied with the requirements under the statute while considering the application of the petitioner, there is no reason why this Court should interfere in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
WA.704/16 -:4:-
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would, however, submit that in so far as Ext.P4 had been issued by the Government, there is no remedy by way of appeal.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government appearing on behalf of the State, we do not think that the learned Single Judge had committed any error in not interfering with the order passed (Ext.P4). Ext.P4 is apparently passed on 6.7.2005. No challenge was made by the appellant for quite a long time and the writ petition is filed only after Ext.P5 order had been passed assigning certain item of property in favour of the Panchayat.
8. Perusal of Ext.P4 order itself would show that the Government was satisfied that the property is not assignable as it obtained a report from the District Collector which indicates that the property is rocky puramboke which is not transferable or assignable as per Land Assignment laws.
9. The main contention urged by the petitioner is based on the report dated 10.1.2011 issued by the Village Officer. The WA.704/16 -:5:- report of the Village Officer is based on an enquiry conducted on an application submitted by one Bhaskaran to the District Collector. The enquiry report can have no application as far as the claim for assignment of land is concerned. The request for assignment of land has been rejected by the Government as early on 6.7.2005 as evident Ext.P4 Government order. Under such circumstances, the report of the Village officer will not have any bearing on the petitioner's claim.
10. Though it is stated by the learned Single Judge that appellate remedy is available, we do not think that the petitioner is entitled for such remedy, especially on account of the fact that the claim for assignment had been rejected in terms of Ext.P4 order dated 6.7.2005 by the Government. On the facts also, we do not find any justifiable reason for interference, nor can the claim of the petitioner be adjudicated. Since the Government had rejected the petitioner's claim based on relevant facts, it is not possible for this Court to interfere with the same. Under such circumstances, we do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, WA.704/16 -:6:- since no grounds are made out to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE krj.5/4/16 //true copy// P.A to Judge