C. LEELA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent Tahsildar, Devikulam to consider Exts.P2 to P2(h) applications for the assignment of land submitted by the petitioners and assign 0.03 cents of property each in survey No.912 of Kannan Devan Hills Village to the petitioners.

(2.) Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioners are landless persons. They belong to scheduled caste community, and they are enjoying the possession of 0.03 cents of landed property each in Kannan Devan Hills Village from 1998 onwards. The petitioners have no other land except the small extent of land covered by Ext.P1 certificate issued by the 5th respondent. On 9/4/2004 the petitioners submitted applications for assignment before the 3rd respondent under Rule 11(8) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, in the prescribed form. But even after the lapse of considerable time, the 3rd respondent did not pass any order on Ext.P2 to P2(h) applications submitted by the petitioners. The petitioners also submitted Ext.P3 to P3(h) applications before the Munnar Grama Panchayat for a building permit. Aggrieved by the inordinate delay in considering the application for building permit, petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.12455 of 2015. On 10/4/2015 this Court disposed of that writ petition directing the Munnar Grama Panchayath to consider and dispose of Exts.P3 to P3(h) representations within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Since there was non-compliance on Ext.P4 judgment, the petitioners filed a contempt of court case and the same is pending before this Court. However, the 4th respondent threatened the petitioner and demolished their respective sheds without serving any notice. Since petitioners had no other land, they again constructed their sheds and resided there. The applications of the petitioners for assignment are pending before the 3rd respondent. But the 4th respondent unnecessarily harassing and threatening to evict the petitioner forcefully. Hence the petitioners approached this Court by filing this writ petition.

(3.) The 4th respondent Special Tahsildar, Revenue Department filed a counter affidavit dtd. 24/2/2016 producing therewith Exts.R4(a) to R4(c) documents. Paragraphs 2 to 5 of that counter affidavit read thus: