AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—Petitioner''s grievance is against Exts. P2 and P7.
According to the Petitioner, he along with his family were conducting a STD booth in 6 sq. metrs of land in Block No. 47 in Sy., No. 48/4 of Erattupetta village which is a Government land. According to the Petitioner, in 1998, they were evicted from the said land and considering his pitiable condition, Ext.P1 order was issued by the 2nd Respondent, leasing out 6 sq. mtrs of land for conducting a STD booth. It is stated that accordingly lease was granted and after putting up the structure he was conducting STD Booth. While so he was issued Ext.P2 notice proposing to evict him from the said booth relying on the circular issued by the Government, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P4. Thereupon, the Petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation before Respondents 2 and 3. Thereafter, complaining that the 3rd Respondent was threatening with eviction, he approached this Court by filing WP (C) No. No. 24672/2010. In that rit petition, this Court rendered Ext.P5 judgment directing the 1st Respondent to consider the representation made by the Petitioner. Accordingly, the 1st Respondent considered the matter and issued Ext.P7, rejecting the Petitioner''s request for continuing in the existing premises and not to renew the lease. It is challenging these orders, th writ petition is filed.
Admittedly, the land in question belongs to the Government. The impugned orders show that in the land in question Erattupetta village office is situated and according to the Respondents, the entire land including the portion in the occupation of the Petitioner, is needed for the development of the village office. It is on this ground, the order not to renew the lease in favour of the Petitioner is sought to be justified.
When the lease is that of the Government, it is for the Government to decide in what best manner the same is to be utilised. Considering the fact that Government needs the land for the development of village office and therefore the lease cannot be renewed in favour of the Petitioner, if the Government has taken a decision, this Court can interfere with such a decision only if the decision is proved to be vitiated for arbitrariness or mala fides. In this case, none of these grounds have been made out by the Petitioner. If that be so, this Court will not be justified in interfering either with Ext.P2 or with Ext.P7. Therefore, I am not persuaded to interfere with this writ petition.
However, having regard to the fact that Petitioner has been in occupation of the land for several years, I direct that he will be given two months'' time to vacate from the land. This judgment shall also be without prejudice to the right of the Petitioner to move the authorities for allotment of alternate land, if available.
Writ petition is dismissed as above.