Muhammed, S/o.Pareed Khadar vs Taluk Tahsildar

Murali Purushothaman, J

The first petitioner states that he is a landless person residing in a rented house in Kunnathunadu Taluk in Ernakulam District and the second petitioner is Chelakkulam Paura Samithi, an association which claims to be formed to keep vigil to prevent encroachment of purambokku land and to voice against illegal assignment of government land in Kunnathunadu Taluk.

The petitioners state that there is a large extent of government assignable purambokku land in Sy.Nos.437/1, 437/1 pt, 437/2, 431/3, 430/2, 431/4, 436/1 in Block No.22 of Arakkappady Village of Kunnathunadu Taluk. The first petitioner had submitted Ext.P6 application for assignment of land in these Sy. Nos. for construction of a house. According to the petitioners, without considering the application of the first petitioner and others who are genuinely entitled for assignment, steps are being taken by the respondents to assign the land to ineligible persons and without following the procedures prescribed under the Kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules. Though the petitioners submitted Exts.P1 to P4 representations before the respondents requesting to assign the purambokku land to landless persons instead of ineligible persons, no action whatsoever was taken by the respondents on such representations. Accordingly, the petitioners have filed the writ petition for the following reliefs:-

I) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ commanding the 1st and 2nd respondents not to assign the purambokku land as per Basic Tax Register (BTR) comprised in Sy. No.s 437/1, 437/1 pt, 437/2, 431/3, 430/2, 431/4, 436/1, in Block No. 22 of Arakkappady Village of Kunnathunadu Taluk to any applicant in violation of Kerala Govt. Land Assignment Act, 1960 and Kerala Govt. Land Assignment Rules, 1964.

II) Issue a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to measure out, demarcate and enlist the assignable land in Sy. No.s 437/1, 437/1 pt, 437/2, 431/3, 430/2, 431/4, 436/1 in Block No. 22 of Arakkappady Village of Kunnathunadu Taluk.

III) Issue a direction to the 5th respondent to enquire and take necessary steps including disciplinary action against those who are responsible for the assignment of land to ineligible applicants out of the land comprised in Sy. No.s 437/1, 437/1 pt, 437/2, 431/3, 430/2, 431/4, 436/1 in Block No. 22 of Arakkappady Village of Kunnathunadu Taluk and direct them to take steps to cancel the Patta issued in violation of the Kerala Govt. Land Assignment Rules.

IV) Issue a direction to the 1st and 4th respondents to take immediate steps to evict the trespassers of the purambokku land situated in Sy. No.s 437/1, 437/1 pt, 437/2, 431/3, 430/2, 431/4, 436/1 in Block No.22 of Arakkappady Village of Kunnathunadu Taluk.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent wherein it is stated that the first petitioner and other applicants are not in occupation of the land to which they have applied for assignment and as per the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, it is not possible to consider their applications for assignment. It is stated that the lands comprised in Sy. Nos.437/2 and 430/2 are not assignable lands and the lands comprised in Sy. Nos.431/4 and 436/1 are Government puramboke and are occupied by persons other than the 1st petitioner and other applicants. The first respondent states that a total of three assignments were carried out in Sy. Nos.436/1 and 437/1 of Re. Sy. Block No.22 of Arakkappady Village and all the three assignees were in occupation of the land for over 15 years and before that, the land was occupied by their predecessors. The assignment is possible only for residential purpose for landless people and the area is limited to 6.07 Ares. Since the first petitioner or the other applicants are not residing in the land applied for assignment, they are not eligible for assignment.

When the writ petition came up for hearing, Sri. Siraj Karoly, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the light of the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, the petitioners limit their prayer for consideration of prayer No.4. viz., direction to the respondents 1 and 4 to take immediate steps to evict the trespassers of the purambokku land situated in Sy. Nos.437/1, 437/1 pt, 437/2, 431/3, 430/2, 431/4, 436/1 in Block No.22 of Arakkappady Village of Kunnathunadu Taluk.

According to the first respondent, the land has been assigned only to eligible persons. The petitioners however submit that most of the persons to whom the land has been assigned are ineligible persons and the assignment has been made in breach of the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules. It is also submitted that the government lands in the aforesaid survey numbers are trespassed and occupied by several persons and respondents 1 and 4 shall be directed to take steps to evict the trespassers of the purambokku property. The petitioners contend that, in the light of the decision reported in Youth Voice Arts Social and Cultural Organization v. State of Kerala [2001 (3) KLT 909: 2001 KHC 823: 2001 (2) KLJ 761], even if the 1st petitioner or other applicants, whose cause the 2nd  respondent espouses are not residing in the land applied for assignment or that they are ineligible for assignment, the petitioners still have the locus standi to challenge the assignment of the said land to ineligible persons and to seek eviction of unauthorized occupants from such land. In the said decision, this Court observed thus:-

"12....In a case where the authorities are taking steps to assign government property to a private person discarding and bypassing statutory inhibitions and mandatory provisions a petition brought under Art.226 of the Constitution to interdict the perpetuation of the illegality and resultant injury to public cannot be thrown overboard by conducting an investigation into the juristic existence of the petitioner."

Further, this Court, in Mahindra Holiday Resorts India Ltd. v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (2) KLT 978:2019 (3) KHC 233:2019 (3) KLJ 166: ILR 2019 (2) Ker. 828], observed as follows:-

"7....The Government is only a public trustee of the land belonging to the State. The Government cannot assign land on their whims and fancies. The land is a natural resource of utmost importance. Therefore, the Government can distribute the natural resources only adhering to the principles of public trust. No land can be assigned ignoring the public interest and detrimental to the public interest.

The Government, being a public trustee, is answerable to the public. No doubt, the public can question if the government land is assigned to ineligible persons or trespassed or encroached upon. However, the petitioners have to approach the authorities under the Land Conservancy Act and the Rules framed thereunder if the government lands are illegally occupied or trespassed.

Whether the government land is illegally occupied or trespassed by any persons, are not matters that can be decided by this Court in the writ petition. It is for the petitioners to ventilate their grievances before the competent authority under the Land Conservancy Act and the Rules framed thereunder or such other appropriate proceedings in the manner known to law, for dealing with such alleged tresspass and eviction. With the observation and liberty as above, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.