Bar Association Perumbavoor v. State of Kerala and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1945 ## WP(C) NO. 39322 OF 2015 ## PETITIONER: THE BAR ASSOCIATION PERUMBAVOOR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ADV.RAMESH CHAND, KACHERIKUNNU, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM - 683 542. BY ADVS. SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE SRI.TONY THOMAS INCHIPARAMBIL ## RESPONDENTS: - 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. - 2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 030. - 3 THASILDAR KUNNATHUNADU TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, PERUMBAVOOR - 683 542. - 4 VILLAGE OFFICER PERUMBAVOOR-683 542 BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER ## OTHER PRESENT: SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.39322/2015 **2** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.39322 of 2015 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of March, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers: i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order calling for records leading to Ext. P7 and P5 orders, and quash the same as incorrect and illegal; ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents not to evict the petitioner from its leasehold property obtained as per Ext.P2, till a favorable decision is taken on its application for assignment on registry; iii) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to get assignment of land held under Ext.P2 lease, as provided under Rule 5 of the Assignment of land within Municipal and Corporation Areas Rules, WP(C).No.39322/2015 **3** ## 1995; iv) Declare that petitioner-bar-association being part of the lower judiciary, is entitled to waive its lease rent, or elect for least rent as prescribed for public non-commercial institutions; and v) Issue any other writ, order, declaration or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The petitioner Bar Association was granted 3 cents of vacant land inside the Court complex of Perumbavoor, as per Ext.P2 lease deed is the submission. It is the case of the petitioner that, the lease was granted on assurance that the same would be soon converted into a grant of registry / pattayam. Relying on the above assurance, the petitioner constructed a three storied building in the leasehold land after collecting funds from its members, is the submission. While so, Ext.P5 notice was issued by the Tahsildar, citing violation of the lease conditions, by WP(C).No.39322/2015 **4** using the leasehold land for commercial purposes. According to the petitioner, the alleged commercial activity is the existence of Bar Association stationery store and Advocates canteen. When Ext.P5 notice was given, on enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the application of assignment of land and waiver of rent were also denied, way back in the year 2007 as per Ext.P7 order. The definite case of the petitioner is that Ext.P5 and P7 orders were passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the building sought to be evicted is also temporarily used for housing the records room of the Munsiff’s Court of Perumbavoor. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in this writ petition. The counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in **Paravur** WP(C).No.39322/2015 **5** ## **District Court Bar Association v. State of Kerala** **and Others** [2013 (2) KHC 165]. The Government Pleader supported the impugned orders. 5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Government Pleader. The definite case of the petitioner is that Exts.P5 and P7 orders are passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. A perusal of those orders would not show that the same is passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner also relied on the judgment of this Court in **Paravur District Court Bar Association’s case** (supra), in which it is stated that it is the bounden duty of the State to provide all paraphernalia for effective dispensation of justice and the Government has to consider the claim of assignment of property in a more realistic manner. It will be beneficial to extract the relevant portion of that judgment: “5. The petitioner-Association has been in WP(C).No.39322/2015 **6** possession of the property in question from 1953 onwards. They have constructed a building thereon in 1954 and they are in occupation of the same ever since. The Revenue authorities are perfectly aware of the fact that the Bar Association is in possession and enjoyment of the property ever since 1953. For effective dispensation of justice, a strong and effective Bar is absolutely essential. In fact in almost all court premises, associations of advocates are permitted to occupy buildings without payment of land value. This is clear from the fact that in every court premises provision is made for housing the Bar Association. Dispensation of justice through courts is a mandatory constitutional duty of the State. It is the bounden duty of the State to provide all paraphernalia for effective dispensation of justice. When a strong and effective Bar is an indispensable part of the administration of justice, the Government cannot simply shut their eyes to the needs of the Bar Association. When in almost all court premises Bar Associations are permitted to occupy Government land without paying for the same, it is arbitrary and discriminatory to deny the Paravur District Court Bar Association the same benefit. In the above circumstances, I am of opinion that the matter should gain the WP(C).No.39322/2015 **7** attention of the 1[st] respondent. For enabling the 1[st] respondent to consider the matter, the petitioner has already submitted Ext.P8 petition. In the above circumstances, it is only appropriate that the 1 st respondent considers Ext.P8 petition appropriately in accordance with the observations made by me hereinbefore. Such an exercise shall be undertaken and completed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If Ext.P8 cannot now be traced in the office of the 1[st] respondent, such exercise shall be carried out on the basis of Ext.P8 available in the paper book of the writ petition. To enable the 1[st] respondent to comply with the above directions, the petitioner shall forward a copy of the writ petition containing Ext.P8, along with a certified copy of this judgment to the 1[st] respondent. Needless to say, the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing orders as directed above. Till then, further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order shall not be proceeded with.” 6. In the light of the above principle laid down by this Court, I am of the considered opinion that the Government should reconsider the matter. Since WP(C).No.39322/2015 **8** Ext.P7 is an order passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, Ext.P7 can be set aside. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with following directions: 1. Ext.P7 is set aside. 2. The 1[st] respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 3. While deciding the matter, the 1[st] - respondent will consider the dictum laid down by this Court in **Paravur District Court Bar Association v. State of Kerala and Others** [2013 (2) KHC 165]. WP(C).No.39322/2015 **9** 4. Till a final decision is taken by the 1[st] respondent as directed by above, status quo as on today will continue. JV/nvj Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** WP(C).No.39322/2015 **10** ## APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39322/2015 ## PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS) 763/97/RD DATED 8.10.1997 EXT.P-2: TRUE OUT COPY OF LEASE DEED NO.5533/98 DATED 16.11.1998 PERUMBAVOOR S.R.O EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF INVITATION CARD ISSUED BY BAR ASSOCIATION PERUMBAVOOR FOR LAYING THE FOUNDATION STONE OF ITS BUILDING EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15.2.2000 EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.C316161/97 DATED 8.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P-6: PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED BY THE PETITIONER, TAKEN ON 21.12.2015 EXT.P-7: TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS) NO.155/07/REV. DATED 5.5.5007 EXT.P-8: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MUNSIFFS COURT, PERUMBAVOOR EXT.P-9: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE REVENUE MINISTER OF KERALA DATED 2.12.2015 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE