Geevarghese Chandy vs The Tahsildar

A.M. Shaffique, J.—These Writ Appeals are filed by the petitioners in O.P. Nos. 4437 and 1672 of 2001 against the common judgment dated 12.6.2014.

The facts involved in the Original Petitions would disclose that the petitioners are persons in occupation of some extent of land, which are lying as road poramboke. According to them, they were in possession of the land for quite some time and by Exhibit P4 order dated 30.6.1981, the Government proposed to assign these lands in favour of the occupants on realisation of land value as proposed by the District Collector. According to the petitioners, though Exhibit P4 had been issued, no further action had been taken to assign the land. In the meantime, demands were made by the revenue authorities for recovery of arrears of lease rent on the ground that the petitioners were in occupation of the premises on Kuthakapattam arrangement. The Writ Petitions were filed challenging the demand for rent as well as seeking direction to enforce Exhibit P4.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions observing that since no steps have been taken on Exhibit P4 for several years, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of Exhibit P4. As far as the demand is concerned, the learned Single Judge did not interfere with the same. Accordingly, the Original Petitions have been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellants inter alia contended that though Exhibit P4 was passed in 1981 and steps were taken to assign the property by way of registry in favour of the petitioners, since final orders were not passed, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Exhibit P4.

The learned Government Pleader, on instruction, would contend that though Exhibit P4 had been issued, subsequently, demands were made by the Government for lease rent, which was agreed by the petitioners and as far as the lease rent is concerned, as matters stood as on the date of filing the Original Petitions, the only relief granted to the petitioners was assignment of the land on lease for limited period, and they were liable to pay the lease rent. No assignment had been made on registry for the last more than 30 years and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim for benefit in terms of Exhibit P4.

Heard learned counsel for either side.

The main argument raised is based on the fact that by Exhibit P12 letter dated 25.3.2003, the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads & Bridges) has informed the District Collector that the said department has no objection in assigning the above mentioned land. The land referred to is in Sy. No. 195/2-B side of Mavelikara Kozhencherry road. The learned Single Judge observed that there is difference in the survey number. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that there is no difference in the survey number, as the survey number mentioned in Exhibit P12 is the present survey number of the property. Whatever that might be, as far as the position as on the date of filing of the Original Petition, the demand made by the Government is for the lease rent. Apparently, the Government have treated the property to be given on assignment as a lease for a specified period, which is liable to be renewed or not to be renewed by the Government in terms of the arrangement between the parties. Therefore, it is not a case where the petitioners can demand assignment on registry. Apparently, after Exhibit P4 no steps have been taken in that regard. There is no assignment order. In such circumstances, we cannot direct the Government to give effect to Exhibit P4 at this stage. Hence, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the said claim.

As far as the claim of rent is concerned, as long as the Government have fixed the rent in accordance with the procedure contemplated, the petitioners cannot challenge the rate of rent. Hence, they are liable to pay the rent as fixed by the Government.

In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find that the appellants have made out any case for interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, these Writ Appeals are dismissed. However, without prejudice to the right of the appellants to approach the Government for appropriate orders.