Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Coming to the merits of the case, I find considerable merit in the contention of the petitioner that the respondents have no consistent case on the issue involved in the writ petition. The action against the petitioner is initiated by Ext.P10 show cause notice, which itself is inconsistent. It refers to both patta and lease granted to the petitioner and directs the petitioner to show cause why the patta/lease should not be cancelled. In Ext.P10, the Collector is not sure as to what is to be cancelled, whether it is patta or lease granted to the petitioner. It alleges violation, by the petitioner, of the provisions of the Cardamom Rules 1936 (sic for 1935) and violation of the 1961 Rules. The 1935 Rules do not contain any provision for lease of Government land for cardamom cultivation. The provisions therein provide only for assignment of land on registry. The 1961 Rules do not contain any provision for assignment of land to anybody. As the name of the Rules itself makes it clear (Rules for Lease of Government Land for Cardamom Rules, 1961) the same relates to lease of Government land only. Ext.P10 refers to violation of the terms of an order granting lease. They have not produced copy of any such order granting lease. They do not have possession of any records either of the patta or the lease referred to in Ext.P10. Then it is anybody's guess as to how they have come to the conclusion that the petitioner has violated conditions in both. At the same time, they find fault with the petitioner for not producing the original patta issued to them and argues that since they have not produced the same they have no title to the property. It is amusing to note that after directing the petitioner to show cause why the patta/lease issued to the petitioner should not be cancelled, the very same authority contends that no patta is produced to prove title. Then again after alleging violation of the terms and conditions of an order granting lease, they now contend that there is no such order. Further, without even seeing the patta or lease, in Ext.P10, the 4th respondent alleges violation of conditions stipulated therein. 

            (c)    Back arrears of assessment shall not be levied.

            (d)    Assignments made under this Rule are subject to the other

general conditions regarding concessional assignment of lands specified in Rules 26 to 31 of the Revised Puduval Rules. NOTE:- In respect of concessional assignments also, the list of the royal and reserved trees standing on the land should be signed by the assignee who shall be responsible for their safe preservation. The patta to be issued to the assignee should specify the conditions of assignment."

Ext.P19 is dated 19.6.1942. In Ext.P8 dated 17.12.1113 (M.E) (which, according to the petitioner, corresponds to 1938 and according to the 4th respondent 1939), it is stated that on the application of the said Pylee Varghese the grant has been made and the agreement is executed for ensuring payment of instalments of balance land value on payment of which patta shall be issued. Therefore, the disposal of the application of the said Pylee Varghese was over prior to the date of Ext.P8. What remained was only payment of balance instalments and issue of patta. Therefore, the conditions in Ext.P19 cannot be made applicable to the grant in favour of Pylee Varghese and therefore, there cannot be any resumption on the basis of the transfer by Ext.P7 by the widow of Pylee Varghese. Further in the absence of the patta itself, it cannot be said that such a restrictive condition was included in the patta. Since it is the Government who sets up such restrictive condition for the assignment, the burden is on them to prove such restrictive condition. The Government themselves effected mutation of the property in favour of the transferees as evidenced by Ext.P15 series. Ext.P7 is dated 22.6.1978 and Ext.P10 is dated 9.1.2007. After almost 29 years, it is too late in the day for the Government to invoke the condition, which they have not been able to prove in respect of the grant in favour of Pylee Varghese.