GEORGE V. V. Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges Exhibit P6 order passed under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 (for brevity "Assignment Rules") and the consequential proceedings taken by Exhibit P7 under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 (for brevity "Conservancy Act"). The ground raised is that he being the person in possession was never issued with notice under the Conservancy Act. Exhibit P7 ordered eviction from 22 cents of property in Survey No. 62/10 - C and 62/28 - A in Kanan Devan Hills Village of Devikulam Taluk in Idukki District. The petitioner is said to have obtained possession of the said land from one Thomas Michael, who obtained a grant of 22 cents of land by proceedings at Exhibit P1 dated 10/12/1986. Another 3.4 cents of land, contiguously lying was also put in possession of a partnership; in which Thomas Michael was a partner, as evidenced by Exhibit P2. In the said property the petitioner has been running a home - stay for long and the eviction notice under the Act was issued in the name of the predecessor - in - interest of the petitioner. The petitioner is sought to be evicted, even without a notice to him, is the contention urged.

(2.) It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that though Exhibit P1 was initially for a period of three years, renewal fees were paid by Thomas Michael upto 1999-2000. The petitioner, together with a partnership firm, was carrying on business in tea in the said land; from which business, the partnership withdrew and agreed for transfer of licence in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner also has filed a detailed reply affidavit, producing various documents to buttress the above contention. Exhibits P11 and P12 are specifically referred to. Exhibit P12, comprising of two communications, are addressed to the Company which executed Exhibit P2 agreement with the partnership firm. Therein, it is stated that the partnership along with the petitioner was carrying on tea business and that the licence agreement may be renewed in the name of the petitioner. Exhibit P11 is addressed to the Grama Panchayat, which is also on similar terms; upon which the petitioner was also granted D&O Licence, based on which he has been continuing in the premises. The licence issued by the Munnar Grama Panchayat in 2007 and 2017 are also produced as Exhibits P4 and P5. It has to be immediately noticed that though the petitioners contention is that he had been carrying on business in tea, the license issued is for lodging and home - stay.

(3.) The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State takes me through Exhibit P1 to contend that it was only a temporary grant for three years and there could never have been a renewal of the same. Clause (3) of the grant, which is in the form of Appendix VII under the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules, 1958 (for brevity "Conservancy Rules"), prohibits any transfer of the rights of the grantee. It is pointed out that Exhibit P3 notice was issued in the year 2007 against the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, it has been specifically pointed out that Thomas Michael had filed an application for assignment alleging that he was in possession of the land from 1971. However, the Property Assessment Register 1991-1992 to 1996-97 of the Munnar Grama Panchayat (Exhibit R2(b)) shows the building in the property, to be that owned by the Public Works Department. The Assistant Engineer, PWD informed the Tahsildar about the building having vested with the PWD (Exhibit R2(c)); on the basis of which the application for assignment was rejected by the Tahsidar.