T.S. Subramanian, Sudarsana, Anandavaleeswaram, Kollam vs State of Kerala and Others

Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader. On perusal of records, we note that on receipt of a demand notice fixing the quantum of lease amount as Rs. 12,42,082.50, the appellant had approached this Court which resulted in Ext.P19 judgment. As per Ext.P19 judgment, paragraphs 5 and 6 were relevant for compliance by the appellant and consideration by the State which read as follows:

The main contention taken by the petitioner is regarding the arbitrary fixation of the lease rent from 1973 onwards. It is stated that the lease rent has been fixed unilaterally and without taking into consideration Exts.P17 to P20 documents also. It is seen that the Government had afforded a personal hearing to the petitioner. However, having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and also the quantum of lease rent fixed as could be seen from Ext.P12, I am of the view that the Government must be directed to consider the fixation of lease rent for the period from 1973 till date afresh with notice and opportunity to the petitioner also. Accordingly, I direct the Government to consider the said question and to take a decision in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is open to the petitioner to place all relevant materials in support of his claim for reduction in the lease rent fixed in Ext.P12. Certainly it is open to the petitioner to rely on Exts.P17 to P20 documents also at the time of personal hearing.

From the counter-affidavit it is seen that the petitioner has not been paying any lease rent fixed either in Ext.P3 or in Ext.P12 since 1973 till date. The counsel for the petitioner submits that certain payments have been effected in between 1973 and 1989. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is in possession of the said land till date without paying the lease rent fixed in Exts.P3 and P12, I am of the view that the directions issued herein above can be made subject to compliance of the following. The amount now quantified as payable on the basis of Ext.P12 comes to about Rs. 12,42,082.50/-. According to the petitioner, he had made certain payments. This is a matter for the petitioner to establish before the Government. However, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- (Rupees five lakhs and fifty thousand only) within a period of two months from today. If the petitioner fails to pay this amount, Exts.P12 and P16 shall stand confirmed. If the petitioner makes the payment, the first respondent Government will pass orders as directed herein above. Since the petitioner states that his application Ext.P7 for assignment of the land is pending before the Government, Government is also directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law. In the light of the directions issued herein above, it is unnecessary to quash Exts.P3, P12 and P16 orders. If the petitioner complies with the directions already issued, the Government will consider the matter untrammeled by Exts.P3, P12 and P16".

Apparently, there was delay in depositing the amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- as per the above direction. Therefore, the direction to re-fix the annual lease amount after hearing the appellant herein was not considered. This has become the subject matter of the dispute in W.P.C. No. 2872/07.

We are now concerned with the appeal impugning the judgment in W.P.C. No. 2872/07. From the records and two judgments referred above, what we notice and according to the appellant, there was no basis to fix the lease amount and even otherwise, the State authorities have indiscriminately fixed the lease amount when compared to similarly situated lands in the neighbourhood. According to learned counsel for the appellant, unless there is determination of annual lease amount by the Government, the question of depositing any amount would not arise. Therefore, the impugned judgment has practically become impossible to be executed or implemented. Hence he seeks for modification of the direction of the learned Single Judge.

According to learned Government Pleader, the quantum of lease amount demanded in the earlier round of litigation was the lease amount fixed right from 1973 to 1989 wherein there was enhancement of lease amount from time to time. In other words, what learned Government Pleader intends to convince us is, right from 1973, no lease amount came to be paid by the appellant but he is enjoying the property in question apart from claiming assignment of the land. There is no dispute so far as lease rent not being paid from 1973 except for remittance of Rs. 5,50,000/- as per the earlier judgment. Unless the lease rent amount is determined, appellant cannot be expected to deposit any definite amount so as to comply with the directions of the learned Single Judge is the contention of the appellant. Having regard to the issues raised and considered in the earlier litigation so also the present litigation and in the light of the fact that right from 1989 till date no lease rent of any nature is paid by the appellant, we dispose of the appeal in the following terms:

The appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) within a period of one month from today so that the directions given by the learned Single Judge at paragraph 18 could be complied with by the respondent authorities. Thereafter the respondent authorities will reconsider the claim of the petitioner as directed in Ext.P19 judgment within a period of three months from the date of deposit of the amount as directed above.