ALIAKUTTY PAUL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by Mrs. Aliyakutty Paul, who claims to be the lessee of Rosary Estate, which was originally said to have been leased to her husband, late P.D. Paul. Originally when the original petition was filed there were four prayers (a) to (d). Prayer (a) is to issue a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from conducting the auction as per Ext. P8 notification. Prayer (b) is to issue a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from removing coffee, rubber sheets, pepper, arecanuts and cardamom kept in large quantities in the godowns of Rosary Estate at Nelliyampathy. Prayer (c) is for other and further reliefs that may be prayed for from time to time. Prayer (d) is to award costs of the proceedings.

(2.) Subsequently the Original Petition was amended as per order in C.M.P.No. 23129 of 1994 dated 26-9-1994 and prayers (e) and (f) were added. Prayer '(e) is to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the auctions of the estate produce conducted in the Rosary Estate on 7-6-1994 and on 3-8-1994 as illegal and void. Prayer (f) is to issue a writ of mandamus or order directing the respondents to hand over possession of the Estate produce auctioned by the second respondent on 7-6-1994 and 3-8-1994, and also to hand over the remaining estate produce which was kept in godowns and buildings in the Rosary Estate of the petitioner. The prayer further indicates that they should be handed over to the petitioner unconditionally and forthwith.

(3.) This writ petition is one of the several writ petitions and litigations that have come up in connection with the Rosary Estate. The facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition can be summarised in brief and it is unnecessary to set out in detail the lengthy original petition in this judgment. The facts in brief are as follows: On 13-1-1953 the Travancore Cochin Government proclaimed that it would sell by auction the leasehold rights for certain abandoned estates. One of the items which was put up for auction is Pullala Estate (West and East Nelliyampathy Hills) having an extent of 239.99 acres (139.29 x 100.70 acres). The reserve premium per acre is Rs.30/-. It is the claim of the petitioner that her husband, P.D. Paul, was the successful bidder, and then it was found that West Pullala Estate of 139.29 acres was not available for being leased as it was in the occupation of others. It is claimed that instead of handing over 139.29 acres, the Government decided to handover 247.07 acres of reserve forest land now called Rosary Estate. The petitioner claims that P.O. Paul was put in possession of this Estate on 22-2-1955. It is the claim of the respondents that he was put in possession on 22-2-1955. as Mr. Paul has given an undertaking on 24-1-1955 to execute a regular registered lease deed and that he would abide by the decision of the Chief Conservator of Forests, with regard to general terms and conditions of lease. The property put in his possession was part of Nelliyampathy Reserve Forest. Subsequently, no lease deed was executed and on 15-11-1962 a draft lease deed was sent by the Divisional Forest Officer to Sri. Paul indicating the period of lease as 40 years and not 99 years, as mentioned in Ext. P1. The fact remains that no lease deed was executed till this day. It is the claim of the petitioner that she has been paying lease rent every year. Mr. Paul, the husband of the petitioner, died on 13-9-1971. The petitioner as executor of his will came into possession of the property. She filed O.P.No.2071 of 1987 to compel the Government to execute a lease deed for 99 years. That O.P. was dismissed by the High Court after elaborate consideration. Then W.A.No.295 of 1988 was filed by the petitioner. The same was later withdrawn by the petitioner with a representation that the O.P. is withdrawn with a view to file a civil suit. The petitioner then filed O.S. number 136 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad for specific performance to compel the Government to execute the lease deed. That suit was dismissed and appeal filed by the petitioner is pending as A.S.No.74 of 1993 on the file of the District Court, Palakkad. Subsequently when steps were sought to be taken to evict the petitioner on the ground that she was illegally in possession of the reserve forest property, another suit, O.S.No.23 of 1993 was filed for an injunction, to restrain the State Government and the forest officials from evicting her. In that suit, I. A.No. 185 of 1993 was filed for the grant of a temporary injunction. That suit is still pending.