(1.) This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to 'renew' a 'kuthakapattom' lease in respect of 75 cents of land in Survey No.236/1 of Panavally Village in favour of the petitioners. There is also a prayer to direct the respondents to consider Ext.P9 request for the same purpose and to pass orders on the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
(2.) The facts as set out in the writ petition reveal that one Govinda Panicker (now deceased), father of the petitioners, was in ownership and possession of 1 Acre and 9 cents of land in Survey No.197/9 of Panavally Village. It is stated that an extent of 75 cents of 'kayalpuramboke' comprised in Survey No.236/1 of Panavally Village and lying adjacent to the aforesaid land in Survey No.197/9 of the Panavally Village was originally in possession of one Madhavi Amma, the mother of the aforesaid Govinda Panicker, from 1940 onwards. After the death of Madhavi Amma, Govinda Panicker continued in possession of the aforesaid 75 cents of 'kayalpuramboke' in Survey No.236/1 of Panavally Village together with registered holdings in Survey No.197/9 of Panavally Village.
(3.) It appears that proceedings were taken against Madhavi Amma under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 and prohibitory assessment was levied against her. As already stated, it appears that Govinda Panicker continued to be in possession of the land following the death of his mother Madhavi Amma. The said Govinda Panicker filed an application for assignment which was originally rejected by Ext.P1 order dated 29.8.1992. That order of the Tahsildar was set aside and the matter was directed to be reconsidered, following which the Tahsildar prepared Ext.P2 report on 4.5.1996 proposing to assign 75 cents of 'kayalpuramboke' in Survey No.236/1 of Panavally Village by levying Rs.11,250/- i.e., at the rate of Rs.150/- per cent. The Government, through Ext.P3 order, decided that the land could be assigned to Govinda Panicker by collecting Rs.2,000/- per cent instead of the amount of Rs.150/- recommended by the Tahsildar in Ext.P2. Since Govinda Panicker had expired by then, the petitioners along with their mother challenged the Government Order before this Court on the premise that the land value fixed was abnormally high and that the said fixation of land value was completely against the recommendation of Tahsildar in Ext.P2. This Court, through Ext.P5 judgment dated 27.1.2006, quashed the order issued by the Government and directed that the matter be reconsidered. Thereupon, the Government issued Ext.P6 order cancelling the order of assignment and directing the recovery of the land in question. Ext.P6 order was challenged before this Court through W.P.(C)No.4208/2007. This Court, through Ext.P7 judgment, found that the petitioners (children of Govinda Panicker) were not entitled to assignment of land. This judgment of a learned single Judge in W.P.(C)No.4208/2007 was affirmed by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 5.10.2012 in W.A.No.1756/2012. While dismissing the writ appeal through Ext.P8 judgment, the Division Bench took note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners (appellants in that case) that, if the petitioners have any interest in the land in terms of the 'kuthakapattom' lease, it is open to them to work out their remedies in accordance with the law. It is in the aforesaid background that the present writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs indicated hereinabove.