K.MANJUNATHA KAMATH Vs. COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is in possession of 15 cents of land in Re-survey No.112/3A1 of Madhur Village, Kasargod. Originally, the petitioner enjoyed the property held by the mother late Smt.Shyamala Bai, who was holding the said property along with registered holdings on the immediate south. The petitioner later sought the assignment of certain property belonging to the Government. The petitioner received information under the Right to Information Act dtd. 5/2/2000, in which the 3rd respondent forwarded a report to the 2nd respondent for assignment of the property, which was abutting the property held by the petitioner. The report was necessitated because the property was directed to be recommended to be dis-reserved for the purpose of assignment in terms of Rule 6 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules 1964. Later by Ext.P3 dtd. 19/3/2012, the Land Revenue Commissioner informed the District Collector that the land cannot be assigned. Therefore, rejected the request made by the petitioner. Aggrieved by Ext.P3, the petitioner approached this court in Writ Petition No. 13008 of 2012, which resulted in Ext.P4. Adverting in Ext.P2 report, this court set aside Ext.P5 order and directed the Commissioner to reconsider the issue after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the result, Ext.P5 order has been passed on 6/6/2018 by the Land Revenue Commissioner. The operative portion of Ext.P5 reveals that the Land Revenue Commissioner had dissented from report of the District Collector dtd. 5/2/2010 and rejected the claim of the petitioner.

(2.) A statement has been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, in which it is contended that the petitioner had encroached upon certain portions of the land and proceedings of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act was stated against the petitioner and the same is pending consideration. It is further contended that the land in question is of greater value, and therefore, the Land Revenue Commissioner was justified in rejecting the request for assignment.

(3.) I have heard Adv. Anagha Lakshmy Raman, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Senior Government Pleader Sri. T.K.Vipindas appearing on behalf of respondents.