VASU T K Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a public interest litigation filed challenging Ext.P7 issued by the District Collector granting time to the 5th respondent to construct Training Centre for the deaf and dump in the 25 cents of land allotted by the Government to the 5th respondent 20 years back. The petitioner's case is that the District Collector has no authority to grant time for completion of the project for which land was assigned to the 5th respondent. We have called for report from the Government and the Tahsildar about the nature of development of the land done by the 5th respondent and the nature of activities of the 5th respondent for the benefit of deaf and dump and the Government Pleader has filed the same. We have heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the 5th respondent and also the Government Pleader for other respondents. After hearing all concerned, we feel the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the W.P.(C) for the simple reason that a project for which precious land is allotted by the Government for a paltry sum is not utilised for the last 20 years. It is seen from Ext.P1 that 25 cents was allotted for a paltry sum to the 5th respondent on the specific condition that training centre for the deaf and dump should be established within one year from the date of allotment of the land. It is seen from Ext.P2 that the possession of the land is handed over to 5th respondent on 27.2.1992. However, the petitioner's case is that the 5th respondent has not used the land for the purposes for which Government has allotted it and that the 5th respondent will not be in a position to execute the project. On the other hand, claim of the 5th respondent before us is that they will be able to execute the project and what is required is time which was granted by the Collector vide Ext.P7.

(2.) In order to verify the capacity of the 5th respondent to execute the project, we asked the Tahsildar to verify the accounts of the 5th respondent and report the financial position. It is seen from the report filed by the Tahsildar that the 5th respondent does not have the financial capacity and there is no accumulated funds with them. The maximum annual income of the organisation in the course of last six years is Rs. 2,17,800/- and the minimum is as low as Rs. 44,796/-. On our specific query as to the percentage of income utilised for welfare of the deaf and dump, the report shows that utilisation is as low as 7.6% for one year, 0.33% for another year, 0.52% for yet another year and the maximum in one year is 33.41%. Obviously 5th respondent neither has the resources, nor the capacity to complete the project or run the same for the benefit of deaf and dump. We also find from the accounts that the 5th respondent is not earnest in the welfare of the deaf and dump for which the organisation is said to be existing. Even though the petitioner challenged the authority of the District Collector to grant extension of time to the 5th respondent to execute the project and according to the petitioner, only Government can grant extension of time, we feel the objection is only technical. However, the second argument of the petitioner that the 5th respondent has not proved their bonafides, resources or capacity before the District Collector to justify extension of time is completely acceptable because we do not find any material for the Collector to expect that the 5th respondent would complete and commission the project. We are also of the view that Ext.P1 first, issued by the Government itself is without conducting any enquiry about the credibility or capacity or even earnestness of the 5th respondent to execute the project. There are ever so many institutions already engaged in charitable activities and have acquired great credibility by virtue of the service already rendered. In our view, before allotting land for any specific purpose, Government should keep in mind the credibility of the organisation and ifs members in whose favour application is considered, their capacity and earnestness to execute the project and track record in the field and only on being satisfied about the applicant's capacity, land should be allotted. Government obviously was indifferent in the matter because even after 20 years of lapses on the part of the 5th respondent in executing the project, nobody has noted their failure and taken any step for restoration of land. Admittedly the only development in the land as of now is a compound wall constructed by the 5th respondent. We do not think the development work done i.e. construction of only a compound wall for the land, in the course of 20 years can justify any extension of time for the 5th respondent, the capacity of which does not stand proved in this court. The fifth respondent's accounts and utilisation of funds for the purpose for which the organisation exists do not justify any order in their favour. In our view, the Collector could extend time only on being satisfied about the progress so far achieved and the capacity of the 5th respondent to execute the project. It is evident from the report furnished by the Tahsiidar that 5th respondent will not be able to execute the project as claimed by them and so much so, we find no material in support of Collector's order extending time for completion of the project by the 5th respondent at this distance of time.