AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ravi, J
The petitioner claims that he and his predecessors-in-interest were/are in possession of an extent of 93.75 cents of land in Iringal Village of Koyilandy Taluk, for the past 50 years. It is stated that there are yielding coconut trees aged about 30-35 years in the property. The petitioner is presently residing in Wayanad for employment. He had applied for assignment of the above-said 93.75 cents of land. On being satisfied after an enquiry regarding the correctness of the details in the application, the petitioner was directed to remit Rs.469/- as land value and Rs.60/- as survey charges. Ext.P1 evidences the remittance of the above-said amount by the petitioner. The petitioner submits that adjoining property holders, who are similarly situated, were issued patta, as can be seen from Exts.P2 and P3. However, no orders were issued on the application for a long time.
It is submitted that after 13 years of the submission of the application for assignment of land, the 3rd respondent, by Ext.P4 communication dated 06.09.2005, intimated that the land could not be assigned for the reason that it is on the side of a river puramboke and sea puramboke. The petitioner preferred Ext.P5 appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. When the appeal was not being considered, he filed W.P.(C).No.36349/2018 before this Court. The writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P6 judgment dated 22.11.2018, directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P5 appeal within 3 months. The Court specifically directed the 2nd respondent to consider the fact that Exts.P2 and P3 patta had been issued to similarly placed persons and pass orders.
The 2nd respondent by Ext.P7 rejected the petitioner’s request. The petitioner submits that Ext.P7 was issued without any hearing, though directed by this Court. It is contended that Ext.P7 order is against the directions issued in Ext.P6 judgment. The reasons stated in Ext.P7 are that the mother of the petitioner is in possession of 0.0445 hectares of land, that the annual income of the petitioner is above Rs.10,000/- which is above the limit fixed under the Rules, and that as per village records, Sy.Nos.1/5 and 15/1 comprise a river, and the un-surveyed land is the seashore, and the assignment of such land is not permissible. The writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P4 and P7 orders.
The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner and his family were illegally holding 93.75 cents of land in Iringal Village in Koyilandy Taluk, which is sea puramboke, and that a petition was preferred in 1989 before the 3rd respondent. It is further submitted that the annual family income at the time of application was above Rs.10,000/-. It is stated that the direction to collect demarcation charges is not an acknowledgment of the eligibility of the petitioner's claim, and the mere fact that the amount was collected does not vest any right in the petitioner. It is stated that the Tahsildar’s report specified that the petitioner and family illegally held 93.75 cents, which is sea puramboke of Iringal Village in Koyilandy Taluk, and that the petitioner’s mother was in possession of 0.0445 hectares of land and the annual income of the family was Rs.10,620/- which exceeded the eligible limit for assignment of Government land. The application is stated to have been rejected for the above-said reasons. It is submitted that Ext.P2 and P3 patta issued to other persons cannot by themselves make the petitioner eligible for a grant of patta. It is stated that after a lapse of 9 years, on 08.09.2004, the petitioner submitted another application to the 3rd respondent without disclosing the earlier application and that Ext.P4 is the reply to the said application. It is contended that Letter No.4418/02/2021/RD dated 07/08/2001 and letter No.11582/C2/05 dated 30.04.2005 prohibits the assignment of land such as seashore, river puramboke, forest land, ecologically fragile land, etc. It is submitted that after Ext.P6 judgment, the petitioner was heard on 02.02.2007, and it is thereafter that Ext.P7 was issued. It is also contended that after the enactment of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act in 1994, the river puramboke was vested with the Panchayat.
The petitioner has filed a reply to the counter affidavit. It is contended that, admittedly, the petitioner has been in possession of the property for the past several years, and there are other similarly situated persons who have been issued with patta. It is submitted that possession of land by the petitioner’s mother will not disentitle him from requesting for assignment. It is submitted that Exts.P4 and P7 do not say that amount was collected erroneously. It is submitted that the finding regarding family income is without any material and that Ext.P8 certificate issued by the Village Officer certifies that the annual income is Rs.7,000/-. It is stated that in Ext.P9 certificate, the Village Officer has found that the petitioner does not have any land in Kalpetta Village. It is stated that it is not correct to say that the petitioner filed a second application before the same authority on 08.09.2004. Ext.P1 refers to No.C2—1329/85 dated 27.5.1992 and file No.M2-7162/88. Ext.P4 refers to file No.B.1329/85, and Ext.P5 appeal was filed against Ext.P4. By Exts.P10 application filed before the Public Information Officer under the RTI Act, the petitioner sought information on whether the proceedings of the District Collector in M2-7162/88 were cancelled and Ext.P11 is the reply received.
The Senior Government Pleader has thereafter filed a memo producing documents in support of the contentions stated in the counter affidavit. Reference to the documents is based on the markings shown on them. Ext.R3A is the copy of the letter dated 17.6.1996 issued by the Tahsildar, Vythiri, to the Tahsildar, Quilandy, stating that the annual income of the petitioner and his family is Rs.10,620/-. It also says that the petitioner is in possession of an extent of 0.0405 hect. in NS No.487.2 of Kalpetta village. It is seen that Ext.R3A is sent as a reply to letter No.C2.1329/86 dated 12.3.1996. Ext.R3B is the report dated 10.4.1996 stating that the annual income of Devaki Amma is Rs.10,620/-. Ext.R3C purports to be the application dated 8.9.2004, referred to in the counter affidavit as an application submitted after 9 years without disclosing the rejection of the earlier application. However, Ext.R3C is only a reminder sent by the petitioner, stating that his application is not yet ordered. Ext.R3D is stated to be an application submitted on 27.5.1992. Curiously, the application, which shows its date as 27.5.1992, is seen to have been signed only on 27.5.1996. There is an endorsement seen in the second page stating that the application cannot be considered since the income exceeds the limit. However, the said endorsement says that the order had been dispatched on 10.12.1996.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Senior Government Pleader.
It is admitted that the petitioner had been in possession of 93.75 cents of land for the past several years. Documents produced by the Government pleader, along with the memo, do not support the contentions in the counter affidavit. The documents would not show that there had been a second application without disclosing the earlier application. It is also seen from the documents produced that the income of the family was initially assessed as ₹7,000/-. However, there appears to have been a further assessment after several years of the application, which says that the income of the family was more than ₹10,000/-. The increase of annual income due to the delay in consideration of the application should not be held against the petitioner. The contention stated in the 9th paragraph of the counter affidavit that the petitioner is continuously attempting to get Government land by “processing with different petitions” is also incorrect. It is evident that the petitioner has only been sending reminders regarding the earlier application. Even though this Court had specifically directed the respondents to take a decision after hearing the petitioner and after calling for a report from the Tahsildar, Ext.P7 does not show that there was any such hearing. Ext.P7 only refers to a hearing which was held in the year 2007, which is much before Ext.P6 judgment which was rendered in the year 2018. There is also no justification as to how the applicant is differently placed than the applicants who were issued with Exts.P2 and P3 pattas. Ext.P7 cannot be sustained for the aforesaid reasons, and the appeal requires a re-look.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P7 is quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P5 appeal as directed by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment, after hearing the petitioner, and dispose of the same in accordance with the law. Orders shall be issued within 3 months of the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.