R.NATARAJAN Vs. VILLAGE OFFICER,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition and the subsequent review, by the learned Single Judge. Essentially the appellant, on the basis of a settlement deed executed by his father, sought to resile from the surrender of certain lands by the father for the development of a road; with an eye on the compensation that he would get if the local authority was forced into acquiring such land; which is apparently necessary and crucial for the development of the Thammanam-Pullepady road. The appellant approached this Court without even the local authority in the party array by a writ petition; in which he sought for a mandamus commanding the 1st respondent, Village Officer, to effect mutation of the property covered as per Exhibit P2 document and for acceptance of land tax. The appellant claimed in the writ petition that 2.08 areas of land in survey No. 478/1 of Elamkulam Village, in the exclusive ownership and enjoyment of his father and which was comprised in 2.28 areas surrendered by his father for the development of Thammanam-Pullepady road, was settled in his favour by virtue of Exhibit P2 deed, executed by his father. The appellant contended that the surrender being of the year 2002, is no more valid for reason of the Revenue Divisional officer having passed no order under Section 4 of the Kerala Land Relinquishment Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as "the Relinquishment Act". The surrendered lands, hence, does not vest in the Government and execution of the deed of 2011, Exhibit P2, is perfectly valid and mutation on that basis is to be effected, was the prayer.

(2.) The 2nd respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, filed a counter affidavit dated 16.1.2012, contending that the land in question is ordered to be taken into possession as "free surrender" and handed over to the Council of the Cochin Corporation for development of Thammanam-Pullepady road. As directed by this Court, a meeting was convened by the 3rd respondent and a report of the District Collector dated 22.2.2012 was placed on record. The said report stated that the survey work for the development of Thammanam-Pullepady road had commenced and permission has been sought from the Land Revenue Commissioner for publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.

(3.) Subsequently, the local authority, the Corporation of Cochin, was impleaded as per order dated 5.6.2012 and they filed a counter affidavit dated 14.6.2012 contending that the father of the appellant had agreed for surrender of 2.28 areas of land situated in Survey No. 478/1 and on the strength of that, the Road Committee had approved the construction of a building having Ground + 5 Floors, which had Floor Area Ratio (for short "FAR"), more than that permissible under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the Building Rules"). The proposal was approved and sanctioned, specifically by virtue only of the free surrender of land for the purpose of development of the road, on condition that no compound wall should be constructed on the eastern side of the property. The appellant's father thus having availed of the benefits under the Building Rules, more specifically Rules 79 to 84, is precluded from resiling from the agreed surrender. Since the appellant's claim is only on the alleged assignment of that land by his father; who had originally surrendered it, he too is bound to honour the surrender and the subsequent assignment cannot create any better right on the appellant. The building permit and the plan were also produced.