V. Krishna Kumari; Dr. Thankam Veeroth; and V. Devidas v. State of Kerala, District Collector, Kozhikode; Tahsildar, Vatakara; Executive Engineer, Kuttiady Irrigation Project; and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2016/29TH ASHADHA, 1938** ## **WP(C).No. 32192 of 2007 (G)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** - **-----------------------** **1. V. KRISHNA KUMARI, ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT UTHARAYANAM, EDODI, VADAKARA.** **2. DR.THANKAM VEEROTH, VEEROTH HOUSE, PATHIYARAKKARA POST, VADAKARA.** **3. V. DEVIDAS, VEEROTH HOUSE, PATHIYARAKKARA POST, VADAKARA.** **BY ADVS.SRI.C.VALSALAN, SRI.I.K.RAJU, SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN, SMT.THUSHARA.V.** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM, KOZHIKODE.** **3. THE TAHSILDAR, VATAKARA, MINI CIVIL STATION, VADAKARA P.O., VADAKARA.** **4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KUTTIADY IRRIGATION PROJECT, PERAMBRA, (P.O) PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.JIBU P.THOMAS.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** rs. ## **WP(C).No. 32192 of 2007 (G)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** - **EXT.P1 COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 12/04/1983. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE SKETCH PLAN OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 14/05/1990 BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 01/08/1991 BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09/07/2001 BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/05/2003 BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 13/02/1957.** - **EXT.P7 COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 21/01/1963. EXT.P8 COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 22/12/2000.** - **EXT.P9 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11/11/2005.** - **EXT.P10 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04/04/2006 IN WP(C).NO.7411/2006.** - **EXT.P11 COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 09/07/2007 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.P12 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25/06/2007 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.P13 COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 26/07/2007 BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.** - **EXT.P14 COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 16/08/2007 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.P15 COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 07/09/2007 BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.** - **EXT.P16 COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 27/09/2007 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **P.V.ASHA, J.** ----------------------------------------------------W.P(C) No.32192 of 2007-G ---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of July, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners seek reconveyance of 10 cents of land, which was acquired by the Special Tahsildar L.A-II, Balusseri in the year 1983 for the purpose of construction of Pathiyarakkara Sub Distributory Canal Block II, for which award No.3/1983 was passed. 2. The petitioners submit that the project for which the land was acquired was abandoned and the properties which were acquired from the adjacent land owners were reconveyed as per Exts.P3 and P3(a) proceedings. Therefore, the petitioners submitted an application before the District Collector requesting for reconveyance of the property acquired from them. The District Collector as per Ext.P4 letter dated 9.7.2001 informed the petitioners that, the property once acquired cannot be reconveyed as held by the Supreme Court. However, it was informed that as per the judgment dated 28.2.2000 in O.P 2 W.P(C) No.32192 of 2007-G No.11746/96, applications can be submitted for assignment or lease of the said property. On submitting another application, the petitioners were informed as per Ext.P5 letter dated 17.5.2003 that, in case the property acquired is in need for any other department, the said property cannot be reconveyed or transferred in favour of a private party. Accordingly, their applications were rejected. The petitioners continued to make representations and finally after submitting Ext.P9 application, requesting for reconveyance of the land, they approached this Court in W.P(c) No.7411/2006 and by Ext.P10 judgment this Court directed the District Collector to consider and pass orders on their application. Thereafter, by Ext.P11 order dated 9.7.2007, the District Collector again rejected the application saying that the said property was required for Kuttiadi Irrigation Project, as informed by the Executive Engineer of Irrigation Department. As per Ext.P12 letter dated 25.6.2007, the Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department informed the Deputy Collector that the property was required for the Kuttiady Irrigation Project and therefore it cannot be reconveyed. That letter was also enclosed along with Ext.P11 letter. 3 W.P(C) No.32192 of 2007-G 3. According to the petitioners, the project for which the land was acquired was abandoned and the properties acquired under the very same notification from the adjacent owners are already reconveyed. Moreover, it is their contention that the property of the petitioners are in the middle of the properties which were already acquired and reconveyed and no purpose will be served by retaining their property alone refusing reconveyance. 4. The 3[rd] respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the proposal for construction of Pathiyarakkara sub distributory canal was given up by the Government and consequent to this, several persons requested for reconveyance. Accordingly, the District Collector after conducting necessary enquiries through Tahasildar Vatakara and obtaining report to the effect that there was no objection to reconvey the land to the applicants therein, had issued Exts.P3 and P3(a) proceedings reconveying the land to them. But in the case of the petitioners herein their application was only on 22.11.1999 and therefore, the said property could not have been included for reconveyance when orders Exts.P3 and P3(a) proceedings were issued in the W.P(C) No.32192 of 2007-G 4 year 1990 and 1991. The respondents have further relied on Ext.P8 order – G.O(Ms)387/2000/RD dated 22.12.2000 which provides for the procedure for disposal of lands acquired for different purposes and remaining unutilized for the purpose for which it was acquired. As per Ext.P8 order, when the land acquired for public purpose is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired, the concerned Department has to bring the fact to the notice of the District Collector concerned and hand over possession of the land to the Revenue Department and thereafter the District Collector shall ascertain from its local bodies concerned whether they require the land for their use. In case the land is not needed by any of the Government Departments, local bodies or public sector undertakings, the District Collector has to take further action for transfer or for assignment of the land in accordance with the standing instructions relating to the transfer of the land between the Government Departments or between Government Departments and local bodies or assignment of land and in the case of more than one claimant, it shall be referred to the Government for their decision. As a last measure it is stated that, in case the 5 W.P(C) No.32192 of 2007-G land could not be disposed of, it shall be disposed of by public auction following the procedure prescribed under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader points out that, if the property, which was acquired, is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired, it cannot be reconveyed and it can only be put in public auction. The learned Government Pleader also relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in **Natarajan R. v. Village Officer, Kanayannur Taluk & Ors.** [2013(2) KHC 26] in which it was held that, even in a case where there is a surrender of land, the property cannot be reconveyed and the disposal of the said land can only be by subjecting the property to public auction. Ext.P8 order also provides for the same. The fact that the property was reconveyed to certain applicants in the year 1990-’91 cannot be relevant when the petitioners chose to submit their application only in the year 1999. The respondents have considered the application in accordance with the rules and orders which prevailed at the relevant time. Therefore, the action of the 6 W.P(C) No.32192 of 2007-G respondents cannot be said to be illegal. 6. However, the respondents shall consider whether the said land is actually required for any purpose or any department, especially when it is pointed out that it is in the middle of the lands which are already reconveyed and cannot be of any use for any department. In that event, the respondents shall consider whether the land which was acquired from the petitioners is to be disposed of in the light of Ext.P8 order in which event the petitioners will also be able to participate in the public auction. The petitioners will be free to approach the Government with an appropriate application and in the event of the petitioners filing such an application, the Government will take appropriate action in the light of Ext.P8. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- **(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)** rtr/