GLORY ABRAHAM v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM

BY ADV SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR RESPONDENT/S: 1 2 3 4 5 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM-682630. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, NEAR MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER RDO MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686001. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ASSIGNMENT, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 683547. THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- WP(C) NO. 34602 OF 2014 2

683547. 6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER RAYAMANGALAM, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 683542. OTHER PRESENT: SRI BS SYAMANTAK, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 34602 OF 2014 3 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------------- W.P.(C.) No. 34602 of 2014 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2024 JUDGMENT The above writ petition is filed with following prayers : “(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P3, P3(a), P4 and P6 orders passed by the respondents, after calling the records relating to the same. (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to assign the property having an extent of 50 cents each in survey no.606/1-23-60 of Rayamangalam Village in petitioners (iii) Any other relief's which may be prayed for from time to time, in the interest of justice.” [SIC]

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the property having an extent of 2.12 acres was in the possession of their WP(C) NO. 34602 OF 2014 4 father. The father of the petitioners died on 22.01.2011. It is submitted that the petitioners' father obtained patta No. PF/2/1973 dated 28.2.1973 with respect to 1.12 acres in survey No. 606/01/23/60 from the office of the Special Tahsildar, Land Assignment, Perumbavoor. The mahazar prepared by the Special Tahsildar Land Assignment, Perumbavoor in connection with the proceedings along with the mahazar plan would show that the extent of land in possession of the petitioners as per the plan is 2.12 acres, whereas the area is shown as 1.12 acres is the submission. The petitioners submitted applications to get patta with respect to 50 cents in their name. The matter is referred to the Village Officer, Rayamangalam and after due enquiry, he filed a report to the 5th respondent herein recommending that the petitioners are eligible to get patta, subject to remittance of market value for the same is the submission. The petitioners approached the 5th respondent herein expressing their willingness to remit the market value of the property. But it is the case of the petitioners that the 5th WP(C) NO. 34602 OF 2014 5 respondent keeps the file in abeyance without any reason. Thereafter, the petitioners' father filed a representation before the District Collector narrating the above facts. The petitioners also filed W.P.(C.) No. 30422/2010 and the same was disposed of with a direction to the Tahsildar, Kunnathunadu to consider the application made by the petitioners seeking assignment within eight weeks. Thereafter, the 4th respondent passed an order stating that the petitioners' family has got more than 50 cents of property and hence, not entitled to get the assignment. Aggrieved by the above order passed by the 5th respondent, the petitioners filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent and the appeal was also dismissed on the ground that the petitioners' family have got more than 50 cents of property and hence, not entitled to get any assignment. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 3rd respondent passed Ext.P4 order without applying mind and it is a non speaking order. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, the petitioners filed W.P.(C.) No.10733/2012 before this Court and the same was disposed with an observation WP(C) NO. 34602 OF 2014 6 that the petitioners shall file a revision before the Land Revenue Commissioner. Accordingly, a revision was filed before the Land Revenue Commissioner. But, the Land Revenue Commissioner also dismissed the revision. Aggrieved by Exts.P3, P4 and P6, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

4. This Court perused Exts.P3, P4 and P6. From a perusal of the impugned orders, it is clear that the petitioners were given sufficient opportunity of hearing before passing the orders. The authorities on perusal of records found that the family including the petitioners holds other land also. Thereafter, the authorities concluded that the land applied for by the petitioners is for beneficial enjoyment and the petitioners do not have any adjoining registered holding to satisfy Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. Therefore, the authorities found that the petitioners are not entitled for assignment of land on beneficial enjoyment. Holding Government land for a long WP(C) NO. 34602 OF 2014 7 time does not confer any claim over the property for assignment. The authorities concerned considered the matter in detail and on perusing those orders, passed the impugned orders. I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the same. All the contentions of the petitioners are considered by the authorities in detail. Hence, there is nothing to interfere with those orders and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. SKS Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE WP(C) NO. 34602 OF 2014 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34602/2014 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXT.P1 :TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA NO.PF/02/1973 DT.28-2-1973 ISSUED BY R4 TO THE PETITIONER'S FATHER. EXT.P2 :TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DT.22-3- 1973 BY R4 IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROCEEDINGS ALONG WITH MAHAZAR PLAN. EXT.P3 :THE ORDER BEARING NO.C1-3762-11 DT.11-5-2011 ISSUED BY R5 TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P4 :TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.A5-4492/11 DT.27-2-2012 ISSUED BY R3 TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P5 :TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.28- 5-2012 IN WPC 10733/2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P6 :TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.19-9-14 PASSED BY R2.