Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 641 (KER)

Johny v. State of Kerala

2020-07-29

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

body2020
JUDGMENT : This Writ Petition was filed seeking the following reliefs: (i). Call for the records leading to the order passed by the Police Department by G.O.(Rt) No.747/1987 dated 14.05.1987 and Order No.B5 46329/87 dated 21.07.1987 of District Collector, Thrissur, and issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, quashing the same. (ii). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 5th respondent, District Collector, Thrissur, to produce order, G.O.(Rt) No.747/1987 dated 14.5.1987 and Order No.B5 46329/87 dated 21.07.1987. (iii). Declare that the action of the District Collector in assigning the land for police department is contrary to the provisions under S.96(1)(ii)(a) of the Land Reforms Act and hence ab initio void, (iv). Pass such other appropriate writ, order or direction as the Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, (v). Award costs. 2. The matter is related to allotting a land by the Government for the Police Department. This land, admittedly, a land surrendered pursuant to the ceiling proceedings initiated under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short, the ‘Act’). The petitioner’s father late Padikkala Anthappan was the declarant. According to the petitioner, the land surrendered under the Act after determination of the ceiling can be used only for the purpose as contemplated under S.96 of the Act. 3. Before going into the merits of the case, it is appropriate to refer certain factual matters which may be required for the disposal of the case. The petitioner has a case that the land which is now the subject matter of the dispute was gifted to him by his father. The petitioner raised a claim invoking S.85(8) of the Act before the Taluk Land Board. This was not considered. This matter was taken up before this Court in W.P.(C) No.26923/2004. That matter was heard along with a Revision Petition filed by the petitioner. This Court disposed both cases by common judgment dated 14.07.2010. 4. The petitioner had raised a contention that the land was allotted in violation of S.96 of the Act. After adverting to the contention, this Court directed the Taluk Land Board to consider whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of the land or not. The Taluk Land Board in its order dated 07.12.2010 rejected the petitioner’s claim. 4. The petitioner had raised a contention that the land was allotted in violation of S.96 of the Act. After adverting to the contention, this Court directed the Taluk Land Board to consider whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of the land or not. The Taluk Land Board in its order dated 07.12.2010 rejected the petitioner’s claim. The petitioner took up the matter before this Court in C.R.P. No.112/2011. This Court affirmed the order of the Taluk Land Board. That means, the petitioner’s claim for restoration has been repelled. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Review Petition before this Court. This Court had not considered the allotment of land to the Police Department. The Review Petition was disposed of by this Court on 21.11.2014 holding that there was no pronouncement on merits in regard to the challenge laid as against the order of the Government allotting land to the Police Department. This is how, the petitioner approached this Court by this Writ Petition challenging the allotment of the land to the Police Department. 5. The order of allotment is purportedly as per the Government Order, G.O.(Rt) No.747/1987 dated 14.5.1987. The District Collector also passed certain orders consequent upon the allotment of the land. These orders were not made available before this Court. It appears that these files and orders are missing. The fact now remains that the land has been allotted to the Police Department. It is in this background, the question has to be examined in this Writ Petition. S.96 of the Act contemplates the assignment of lands by the Land Board. The said Section reads thus: 96. It appears that these files and orders are missing. The fact now remains that the land has been allotted to the Police Department. It is in this background, the question has to be examined in this Writ Petition. S.96 of the Act contemplates the assignment of lands by the Land Board. The said Section reads thus: 96. Assignment of lands by Land Board.-- [(1) The Land Board shall assign on registry subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed, the lands vested in the Government under Section 86 or Section 87, as specified below: (i) the lands in which there are kudikidappukars shall be assigned to such kudikidappukars; (ii) the remaining lands shall be assigned to- (a) landless agricultural labourers; and (b) small-holders and other landlords who are not entitled to resume any land: Provided that eighty-seven and a half per cent of the area of the lands referred to in clause (ii) available for assignment in a taluk shall be assigned to landless agricultural labourers of which one-half shall be assigned to landless agricultural labourers belonging to the [Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes., and such other socially and economically backward classes of citizens as may be specified in this behalf by the Government by notification in the Gazette.] (Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section- (a) a kudikidappukaran or the tenant of a kudiyirippu shall be deemed to be a landless agricultural labourer if he does not possess any other land; (b) “kudikidappukaran” shall include a person who was a kudikidappukaran to whom a certificate of purchase has been issued under sub-section (2) of Section 80C). (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Land Board may, if it considers that any land vested in the Government under Section 86 or Section 87 is required for any public purpose, reserve such land for such purpose]. (2) The Land Board shall not assign to any person more than one acre in extent of land. (3) Where a person possesses any land, only so much land as will make the extent of land in his possession [one acre] shall be assigned to him. 6. On determination of the extent of the ceiling, the ownership and possession of the excess land had to be surrendered to the Government. Thereafter, this land would be vested with the Government absolutely (See Sections 86 and 87 of the Act). 6. On determination of the extent of the ceiling, the ownership and possession of the excess land had to be surrendered to the Government. Thereafter, this land would be vested with the Government absolutely (See Sections 86 and 87 of the Act). The Government thus will become the owner of the land. The excess land vested with the Government can be assigned by the Land Board for the purpose mentioned under S.96 of the Act. This assignment confined to the restricted category of persons referred therein. The land can be assigned to the landless agricultural labourers which include Kudikidappukars. The main objective of assignment of land is to provide land to the landless persons and also to augment agricultural activities. The Land Board cannot assign land for any other purposes other than mentioned therein. 7. The Government has the power under S.96(1A) to reserve land for any public purpose. Therefore, it is clear that for any public purpose, it is for the Government to decide on assignment. This residuary power conferred on the Government under S.96(1A) would enable the Government to allot land citing public purpose. The allotment of the land, in this case, appears to be for the Police Department for the construction of the Police quarters and other structures. That cannot be questioned on the ground that it lacks public purpose. When the Government interest itself is protected, that itself becomes a public purpose. 8. Apart from the merit, the petitioner cannot question the allotment of land to the Police quarters. In regard to the right of the petitioner to question the allotment based on his claim under S.85(8) of the Act has attained finality by the orders of this Court rejecting his claim. Therefore, from that moment, the petitioner’s right is foreclosed to challenge the allotment of the land. The petitioner’s right to question the allotment was available till his claim under S.85(8) is decided. Once that decision is taken and rejected, the petitioner no longer retains any right to question the allotment. The petitioner cannot be treated as any potential beneficiary to raise such a claim as contemplated under S.96. In a private interest litigation, the petitioner also cannot espouse as a public interest litigant, taking up the cause of beneficiaries who may be entitled for the benefits under S.96. In the light of the discussions as above, the Writ Petition is only to be dismissed. In a private interest litigation, the petitioner also cannot espouse as a public interest litigant, taking up the cause of beneficiaries who may be entitled for the benefits under S.96. In the light of the discussions as above, the Writ Petition is only to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.