M BHASKARAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings for reconveyance of land in Survey No. 299/12 A and B of Alwaye village to the additional 4th respondent and also for a writ of mandamus to consider the representation of the petitioner for assignment of land to him. The additional 4th respondent was the owner of property situated in Survey No. 299/12 A and B of Alwaye village. The Central Government acquired in 1952 two acres of land comprised in Survey No. 299/12 A and B of Alwaye village from the 4th respondent for the purpose of construction of National Highway. The construction of the National Highway was over in 1954 and the Government utilised only about one acre for the actual construction of the road. There was 1.10 acres of land remaining unutilised of the public purpose. The land was not needed for other public purposes of the Government or other local authorities. Therefore on 10-7-1962 the petitioner was given 50 cents of land on kuthakapattom lease for a period of 12 years from 1-4-1961 to 31-3-1973 as per G.O.Ms.595/Rev. dated 10-7-1962. Long after the expiry of the lease period, on 31-12-1979 the petitioner was directed to surrender 50 cents of land given to him on kuthakapattom lease. It would appear from Ext. P2 notice issued to him in this regard by the Tahasildar that there had been an application by him for assignment of the land which was rejected and it is thereafter the petitioner was directed to surrender the land in question, viz. 50 cents of land. Even thereafter surrender was not given. Therefore the third respondent took possession of the land from the petitioner on 2-5-1980. The land was not required for public purpose and that has been given to other persons on lease. Therefore the additional 4th respondent filed representation dated 26-11-1983 for reconveyance of the land compulsorily acquired from the institution, viz. St. Dominic's Church, Alwaye. Acting upon such a representation, the Govt. passed Ext. P7 order to reconvey the land to the original owner realising the value as laid down in the Govt. Order dated 30-10-1967 which is produced by the petitioner as Ext. P7 along with reply affidavit. The contention of the petitioner is that once the land is acquired for the public purpose it will become a Government land for the purpose of Land Assignment Act and therefore the land should be dealt with only as mentioned in the Land Assignment Act. Hence it is submitted that the Government has no power to reconvey the land to the additional 4th respondent from whom the land has been acquired. It is also mentioned that the petitioner is a person owning land in the neighbouring area and for the beneficial enjoyment of his property the land is required for him and therefore going by the Land Assignment Act and Rules he gets preferential right for assignment or lease.

(2.) On behalf of the Government, the Govt. Pleader submitted that the enquiry has revealed that the petitioner did not hold any property adjacent to the land in question. The Govt. Pleader also submitted that the Government have issued orders regarding the disposal of unutilised portion of acquired land as early as on 30-10-1967 by G.O.MS.530/67 dated 30-10-1967 and the reconveyance of the unutilised acquired land is governed by the said G.O. The Government have received a petition from the original owner from whom the land was acquired. The Government considered the case and decided to reconvey the land in question to the original owner. The land was acquired in 1952 and only a portion was required for the purpose for which the same was acquired. It was also not required for any other public purpose. Therefore a portion of it was leased temporarily to the petitioner. The original owner got every right to get the unutilised area reconveyed to him. The said 1.10 acres of land was remaining vacant for a good number of years, neither the Government Departments nor the local bodies make any request at any time for the land for their occupation. Even when 50 cents was leased out to the petitioner there was no request by the Government Departments or local bodies. It is in that context the Government decided to reconvey the land after realising the value as laid down by the Govt. Order aforementioned, viz. G.O.MS No.530/67 dated 30-10-1967. The petitioner has no claim over the land in question and only after considering all this aspect the Government passed order on 29-11-1984 to reconvey the land. On behalf of the addl. 4th respondent it was submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the original petition. The petitioner held no property adjacent to the land in question. The petitioner also has not made any proper application for assignment or lease. His request for assignment has been rejected as early as on 17-6-1979 and he has not filed an appeal or revision against the said order as required under Rule 21 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. The petitioner made representation on 23-11-1982 before the Minister for Revenue, Government of Kerala which he wants to get disposed of. The action of the petitioner it is submitted is only to delay the proceedings and is vitiated by mala fide. 2-A. I heard counsel.

(3.) In support of the contention of the petitioner counsel referred to the decision reported in Parameswaran Pillai v. State of Kerala, 1961 Ker LJ 1192. In that case assignment of Government land by Government without notification and inviting claims under S.4 was challenged. It was held that S.4 and the procedure under the section are mandatory and therefore the Government has to comply with S.4. The Division Bench held that-