High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-12-06Writ petition disposed with directions to consi...

Sajeesh P.P Parambath & Swathy Krishna v State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) No. 22065 of 2021

Neutral Citation:W.P.(C) No. 22065 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2021-12-06
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is allowed in part. The Court directs the 2nd respondent, District Collector, to consider the petitioners’ applications for land assignment under the Assignment of Land in Municipal and Corporation Area Rules 1995 after affording them an opportunity of hearing, and to pass an appropriate order thereon expeditiously but not later than three months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Court has not adjudicated the merits of Ext.P2 or the eligibility under the beneficial prescriptions, which are left for decision by the competent Authority after due hearing.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed with directions to consider the land-assignment applications after hearing and issue a final order within three months; merits of Ext.P2 and the earlier assignment are left for later decision by the competent Authority.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sajeesh P.P Parambath
Swathy Krishna

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
The District Collector Waynad, Kalpetta North Post Wayanad
The Deputy Collector (LR) Collectorate, Kalpetta North Post, Wayanad
The Tahsildar Taluk Office, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad District
The Village Officer, Sulthan Bathery Village Office, Wayanad District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• RAFFEEKH.K

Counsels for Respondents

• Shri Jaffar Khan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition by Sajeesh P.P Parambath and Swathy Krishna seeks assignment of land in Sulthan Bathery under the Assignment of Land in Municipal and Corporation Area Rules 1995 and Ext.P2 Government Order. The petitioners allege that their applications have remained pending for years despite notices under Rule 7(1) of the Land Assignment Rules 1964, and seek a direction to the District Collector to process their claims within a time frame. The Senior Government Pleader contends that the petitioners’ applications can be considered under the Rules, but Ext.P2 cannot be invoked for them since it was under challenge and the court in CC Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala (W.P(C) No. 33638 of 2019) delivered affirmative declarations affecting such matters; the entitlement of the petitioners is also clouded by the fact that the father had an earlier land assignment, which may inure to the family. The Court, however, confines its examination to whether the petitioners’ application should be considered under law, leaving merits for the competent Authority post hearing. It directs the District Collector to consider the petitioners’ application after affording them a hearing and to pass an appropriate order within three months of receipt of a copy of this judgment, while keeping the substantive questions open for future decision by the authority.

Provisions of Law Cited

Assignment of Land in Municipal and Corporation Area Rules 1995Rule 7(1) of the Land Assignment Rules 1964Rule 21 of the Rules

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that their land-assignment applications under the 1995 Rules and Ext.P2 Government Order should be considered. They contend that though Rule 7(1) notices were issued, no final action has been taken, and seek directions to the District Collector for expeditious processing. They rely on the availability of the benefits under Ext.P2 and the need for timely adjudication, while noting the prior family land assignment in their lineage.

Contentions of Respondents

The Senior Government Pleader submits that the petitioners can be considered under the Rules; however Ext.P2 cannot be invoked for them since it was being challenged and the related judgments (notably CC Anil Kumar) have affected its applicability. The entitlement of the petitioners is further clouded by the earlier land assignment to the father, which may inure to the family; the matter requires due process and hearing before final action by the competent Authority.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
C.C.Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala and Others	W.P(C) No. 33638 of 2019	Mentioned Only	The judgment is referred to as background for Ext.P2 and related declarations; the current order does not rely on its holdings but cites it as context for the ongoing challenge to Ext.P2.

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 Sajeesh P.P Parambath & Swathy Krishna 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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 22065 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONERS:** - 1 SAJEESH P.P PARAMBATH HOUSE, MAITHANIKUNNU, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD PIN - 673592. - 2 SWATHY KRISHNA W/O. SAJEESH P.P, PARAMBATH HOUSE, MAITHANIKUNNU, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD PIN - 673592. BY ADV RAFFEEKH.K ## **RESPONDENTS:** - 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - PIN - 695001. - 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR WAYANAD, KALPETTA NORTH POST WAYANAD, PIN - 673122. - 3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR) COLLECTORATE, KALPETTA NORTH POST, WAYANAD, PIN - 673122. - 4 THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673592. 2 W.P.(C)No. 22065 of 2021 - 5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, SULTHAN BATHERY VILLAGE OFFICE, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673592. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.12.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).21821/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 3 ## W.P.(C)No. 22065 of 2021 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 6th day of December, 2021.** The petitioners in this case seek that the 2[nd] respondent be directed to assign them land in the Sulthan Bathery Village, as per the provisions of the Assignment of Land in Municipal and Corporation Area Rules 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short), as also those of Ext.P2 Government Order. 2. The petitioners allege that even though their application for the afore purpose has been pending for the last several years, and though notice under Rule 7(1) of the Land Assignment Rules 1964, had been issued to them, no further action has been taken by the competent Authority on it until now; and therefore, pray that they be 4 W.P.(C)No. 22065 of 2021 directed to do so, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 3. In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader – Shri.Jaffar Khan, submitted that if the petitioners only require their application to be considered in terms of the Rules, there is no legal impediment for the competent Authority to do so. He, however, explained that the petitioners may not be able to seek the benefit of Ext.P2 Government Order because it was one which was issued, invoking the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules, but that the same was under challenge before this Court which finally led to the judgment in **C.C.Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala and Others [W.P(C)No.33638 of 2019]** . He submitted that, therefore, even though some others were given the 5 W.P.(C)No. 22065 of 2021 benefit of Ext.P2, the petitioners cannot seek the same, after this Court had delivered affirmative declarations in the afore judgment. He further added, that the entitlement of the petitioners is further under cloud because the father had already been assigned land earlier, consequently, rendering their application incapable of being considered, because the benefit of the earlier assignment inures to the family. 4. I do not propose to go into the merits of the contentions of the learned Senior Government Pleader as afore, because as of now, the petitioners only seek that their application of assignment be considered in terms of law. Whether Ext.P2 would be applicable to them or if they are eligible to the beneficial prescriptions thereunder, as also whether their application is 6 W.P.(C)No. 22065 of 2021 maintainable because of the earlier assignment in favour of the father, are matters which will have to be decided by the competent Authority, after they are afforded an opportunity of being heard. Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the 2[nd] respondent – District Collector, to consider the application of the petitioners for assignment of land, after affording them an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment . Needless to say, I have not considered the merits of the contentions of the rival parties on their merits and all of them are left open - including as to whether Ext.P2 7 W.P.(C)No. 22065 of 2021 would be applicable to the petitioners - to be decided by the 2[nd] respondent appropriately, while the afore exercise is completed. ## **Sd/-** **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** Raj/06.12.2021. 8 ## W.P.(C)No. 22065 of 2021 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22065/2021`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 29.03.2011 Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(M.S) NO. 85/2019/REVENUE DATED 01.03.2019. Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 2 NOTICE DATED 04.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ```