SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner states that his father was the owner of 30 cents of property in Block No.109, Re Survey No.6 of Aryanadu South Village. The petitioner's father had assigned 7.50 Ares of the said property to the petitioner and the remaining 3.43 Ares to the petitioner's brother Sreekumar. The mutation of the said properties has been effected and they are paying tax and are in possession of the said properties. Apart from the said land (the registered holding),the petitioner's father was also in possession of 4.55 Ares of land in Block No.110 in Sy. No.122/10 of the said Village and the said land is lying adjacent to the registered holdings of the petitioner and his brother and the only access to the registered holdings of the petitioner and his brother is through this property. It is stated that the petitioner's father had obtained Kuthakappattom of the aforesaid 4.55 Ares of land in 1965 as per K.P. 28/65 for the beneficial enjoyment of the registered holding lying adjacent and the petitioner's father was paying the lease rent for this property without default.

(2.) While so, it is stated that the petitioner's father passed away on 9.12.2014 and during this period, the third respondent Tahsildar issued Ext.P8 notice dated 15.11.2014 addressed to the petitioner's father demanding an amount of Rs.83,145/- towards arrears of lease rent and informing that if the amount is not remitted the same would be recovered by initiating revenue recovery proceedings and the lease would be cancelled.

(3.) According to the petitioner, while the petitioner's father was alive, he had made an application under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 (for brevity, 'the Rules') for assignment of the aforesaid 4.55 Ares of land in Block No.110 in Sy.No.122/10 of Aryanadu South Village for the beneficial use of the registered holding referred to above. However, the said application for assignment of land was rejected by the District Collector as per order No. C7/25078/11/K.Dis dated 28.11.2011 and the same was communicated to the petitioner's father by Ext.P11 letter of the Tahsildar. In Ext.P11, it is stated that the application submitted by the petitioner's parents for assignment of 4.55 Ares of land for the beneficial enjoyment of the registered holding was under consideration, but, had to be rejected by the District Collector in the light of G.O.(MS) 280/2011/RD dated 27.07.2011 (Ext. P12) which provides that assignment of land on patta (registry) will be only to landless. The petitioner states that he came to know about the rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner's father under Rule 6(2) of the Rules after the death of his father. It is challenging Ext.P11 communication of the Tahsildar, intimating the rejection of the application of the petitioner's parents made under Rule 6(2) by the District Collector, on the basis of Ext. P12 Government Order, the petitioner has approached this Court.