High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of with directions to co...

P.P. Subramanian v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.1182 OF 2021(W)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Anil K. Narendran
Judgment Date
2021-01-15
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition is disposed of by directing the 4th respondent Tahsildar to consider Ext. P3 and pass appropriate orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law, after giving notice to the petitioner and affording him an opportunity of hearing, within three months from the receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of with directions to consider Ext. P3 within three months in accordance with law, with notice and hearing to the petitioner.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • P. P. Subramanian

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
  • The District Collector, Civil Station, Ayyanthole, Thrissur District
  • Taluk Assignment Committee, represented by the Tahsildar, Chalakudy Taluk Office, Mini Civil Station, Chalakudy P.O., Thrissur District
  • The Tahsildar, Chalakudy Taluk, Mini Civil Station, Chalakudy P.O., Thrissur District
  • The Village Officer, Vadakkumbhagam Village, Vadama P.O., Thrissur District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • M.R. Jayalathа
  • • K. Vinaya

Counsels for Respondents

  • • A.C. Vidhya (Government Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, P.P. Subramanian, claims occupation of 33 cents of Government land (Survey No. 609/9, Vadakkumbhagam, Kattikkarakunnu) and seeks a land assignment patta under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. He filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus to respondents 3 and 4 (Taluk Assignment Committee and Tahsildar, Chalakudy Taluk) to expeditiously consider Ext. P3 dated 05.10.2019 and issue a land assignment patta, additionally seeking a declaration of entitlement under Rule 9 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. Ext. P4, a communication dated 04.11.2020 issued by Mala Grama Panchayat, is based on Ext. P4(a) decision of 13.10.2020. The petition relies on the statutory framework: the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960 (Sections 3-5; Section 7 enabling the Rules) and the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 (Rules 4-9, including Rule 4 for purposes of assignment, Rule 5-8 on limits, conditions, priority, and Rule 9 on arrears and provisional patta). The Court cites Varghese Abraham (2007) for protecting landless persons, and Supreme Court authorities (State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra; Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI) to emphasize that orders must be in accordance with law. The Court directs the Tahsildar to decide Ext. P3 with notice and hearing, expeditiously but within three months, in conformity with law.”

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India - Article 226Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960 - Section 3Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960 - Section 4Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960 - Section 5Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960 - Section 7Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 - Rule 4Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 - Rule 5Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 - Rule 6Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 - Rule 7Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 - Rule 7AKerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 - Rule 8Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 - Rule 9

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • No vested right in any person to claim assignment on registry of Government land.
  • No mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something contrary to law.
  • Courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass orders contrary to statutory provisions.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the 4th respondent Tahsildar to consider Ext. P3 and pass appropriate orders thereon, with notice and an opportunity of hearing, claiming entitlement under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 and seeking prompt relief within a lawful framework.

Contentions of Respondents

The Government Pleader urged that the 4th respondent should consider Ext. P3 in accordance with law; the petitioner’s counsel pressed for hearing and notice; the court’s direction was that decisions must be made strictly in accordance with statutory provisions.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Varghese Abraham v. State of Kerala, Revenue Department and others2007 (3) KHC 365PositiveUsed to emphasize that the Act and Rules are meant to protect landless individuals and not to enrich landholders, indicating no vested right to an assignment on registry.
State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra(1996) 9 SCC 309PositiveCited for the principle that mandamus cannot compel actions contrary to law or require the government to refrain from enforcing statutory provisions.
Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI(2011) 10 SCC 259PositiveCited to reaffirm that courts cannot direct authorities to act against statutory provisions and must enforce the rule of law.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against P.P. Subramanian v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 25TH POUSHA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.1182 OF 2021(W)** ## **PETITIONER :** **P.P.SUBRAMANIAN,AGED 60 YEARS S/O. PENGAN, PULLUPARAMBIL VEEDU, HOUSE NO. 43/20, KATTIKKARAKUNNU, P.O, ASHTAMICHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680731.** **BY ADVS. SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA SMT.K.VINAYA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.** - **2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680003.** **3 TALUK ASSIGNMENT COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY THE TAHSILDAR, CHALAKUDY TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, CHALAKUDY P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680307.** - **4 THE TAHSILDAR, CHALAKUDY TALUK, MINI CIVIL STATION, CHALAKUDY P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680307.** - **5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKUMBHAGAM VILLAGE, VADAMA P.O, TRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680732.** -2- WP(C).No.1182 OF 2021(W) **BY SMT A.C.VIDHYA- GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -3- WP(C).No.1182 OF 2021(W) ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is stated to be in occupation of 33 cents of land in Survey No.609/9 of Vadakkumbhagam Village, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 3 and 4 to take urgent steps for issuing land assignment patta, as sought for in Ext.P3 application dated 05.10.2019, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that he is entitled to get land assignment patta with respect to the above land under, Rule 9 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. The document marked as Ext.P4 is a communication dated 04.11.2020 issued by the Secretary of Mala Grama Panchayat, which is based on Ext.P4(a) decision taken by the Grama Panchayat on 13.10.2020. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960 is enacted to provide for the assignment of Government land. Section 3 of the Act deals with assignment of Government land and -4- WP(C).No.1182 OF 2021(W) Section 4 deals with the procedure to be followed before Government lands are assigned. Section 5 deals with order of assignment. 4. In exercise of the powers under Section 7 of the Kerala Land Assignment Act and in supersession of Rules for assignment of Government lands, issued under notifications I and II G.O(P).No.1029/Rev. dated 18.10.1958 published in the Kerala Gazette Extra Ordinary No.107, the Government of Kerala made the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 for assignment of Government lands. As per Rule 4, which deals with purposes for which land may be assigned, the Government lands may be assigned on registry for the purpose of personal cultivation, house sites and beneficial enjoyment of adjourning registered holdings. 5. Rule 5 of the Rules deals with maximum limits to be assigned for cultivation; Rule 6 deals with assignment for house site and for beneficial enjoyment; Rule 7 deals with priority to be observed in assignment; Rule 7A deals with preference to kumkidars. Rule 8 deals with conditions of assignment on registry; and Rule 9 deals with collection of arrears of Government dues and issue of provisional patta. WP(C).No.1182 OF 2021(W) -5- 6. In **Varghese Abraham v. State of Kerala, Revenue Department and others [2007 (3) KHC 365]** , a Division Bench of this Court held that various provisions in the Kerala Land Assignment Act and the Kerala Land Assignment Rules would unmistakably show that the Act and the Rules are made to protect the landless people by assigning them Government lands for cultivation and other purposes. The provisions under the Act and the Rules are not intended for enriching persons who hold extensive lands. Assignment on registry of Government lands to such persons would defeat the very purpose of the Act and the Rules. The Division Bench held further that, there is no vested right in any person to claim assignment on registry of Government land. 7. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the 4[th] respondent Tahsildar will consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that consideration of Ext.P3 application may be with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard. -6- WP(C).No.1182 OF 2021(W) 9. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 4[th] respondent Tahsildar to consider Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 10. In **State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309]** the Apex Court held that no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. In **Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259]** the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no Court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law. -7- WP(C).No.1182 OF 2021(W) Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this judgment, the 4[th] respondent Tahsildar shall take an appropriate decision on the matter, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the relevant statutory provisions and also the law on the point. **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** AV/15/1 -8- WP(C).No.1182 OF 2021(W) ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD, ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P1(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION ID ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P1(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE RATION CARD NO. 1843055901 DATED 24.12.2008.** **EXHIBIT P1(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE RATION CARD NO.1875006832 DATED 15.03.2017 ISSUED SARASAMMA SUBRAMANINAN (WIFE OF THE PETITIONER)** **EXHIBIT P1(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONERS BUILDING DATED 11.11.2020.** **EXHIBIT P1(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE WATER BILL IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER'S BUILDING DATED 09.07.2018. EXHIBIT P1(f) A TRUE COPY OF THE BSNL BILL WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONERS BUILDING DATED 08.03.2018.** **EXHIBIT P1(g) A TRUE COPY OF THE PASSBOOK ISSUED BY BHARATH GAS TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P1(h) A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE VOTERS LIST OF MALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT.** - **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.09.2014 ISSUED BY MALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT.** **EXHIBIT P2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPTS ISSUED BY MALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT.** -9- WP(C).No.1182 OF 2021(W) **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM FOR ASSIGNMENT OF LAND DATED 5.10.2019 ALONG WITH TYPED COPY. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 04.11.2020 EXHIBIT P4(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE MALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 13.10.2020.**