IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 3038 of 2001(J)
1. K.P.FRANCIS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.PKM.HASSAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :10/11/2008
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
O.P. No. 3038 of 2001
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 10th November, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are three brothers and partners of a firm called
K.C. Pappu & Sons. They were issued with Ext. P1 notice directing
them to show cause as to why ground rent payable by them in respect
of 0.00.16 hectares of land in survey no. 1757/1, in their possession
should not be revised in accordance with G.O (MS) No. 227/97 dated
1-4-1997. The petitioners’ contention is that they are not in
possession of any land in survey no. 1757/1. They purchased 3.25
cents of jenmom land in survey no. 794/6 in Ernakulam village by Ext.
P4 sale deed dated 12-4-1999. They have not paid any ground rent at
any time in respect of the property purchased by them. Therefore,
the question of payment of ground rent or enhancement of ground
rent either on the basis of Government Order dated 1-4-1997 or any
other order does not arise. Taking these contentions, the petitioners
filed Ext. P2 objections before the 2nd respondent. However, after an
year, Ext. P3 order dated 24-10-2000 has been passed directing the
petitioners to pay an amount of Rs. 4,70,162/- towards arrears of
ground rent and penal charges for the period from 13-11-1995 to 31-
3-2000. The petitioners are challenging Exts.P1 and P3 orders on the
above grounds. The petitioners rely on a judgment of a learned Judge
of this Court in O.P.No. 28189/1999 and connected cases, whereby
this Court held that G.O(MS) No. 227/97 dated 1-4-1997 is
unenforceable. Therefore, according to them, even assuming that any
ground rent is payable by the petitioners in respect of any property,
which itself is not admitted, Exts.P 1 and P3 based on the above said
Government Order are liable to be quashed.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent
wherein it is stated that 0.16 ares of land in survey no. 1757/1 of
Ernakulam village is lying adjacent to the patta land of the petitioners
O.P. No. 3038/2001 -: 2 :-
in survey no. 794/6. According to the 3rd respondent, that
Government land may have come into possession of the petitioners
while purchasing the patta land in survey no. 794/6. But in so far as
0.16 ares of Government land in survey no. 1757/1 is in possession of
the petitioners, the petitioners are liable to pay ground rent in respect
of that property, is the contention raised in the counter affidavit.
3. In answer to the same, the petitioners would submit that in
respect of the question as to whether the petitioners were in
possession of any Government land or not in survey no. 1757/1, no
enquiry worth the name has been conducted by the respondents,
without which no ground rent can be demanded from the petitioners.
4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
5. In so far as Exts.P 1 and P3 are concerned, admittedly, they
are based on G.O(MS) No. 227/97 dated 1-4-1997. That Government
Order has been found by this Court to be unenforceable by the
judgment in O.P.No. 28189/1999 and connected cases dated 28-6-
2002. That being so, Exts.P 1 and P3 are liable to be quashed on that
ground alone. I do so.
6. As far as the question as to whether the petitioners are in
possession of any Government land or not, that can only be after a
detailed enquiry with notice to the petitioners. In Exts.P 1 and P3, the
demand is only in respect of survey no. 1757/1 and not with reference
to survey no. 794/6. Despite Ext. P2 objections filed by the
petitioners, there is absolutely no mention whatsoever on the question
as to whether the petitioners are in possession of any Government
land or not. The first time they raised that contention is in the
counter affidavit. Hence, it is abundantly clear that no enquiry worth
the name has been conducted on that question. Therefore, on the
basis of Exts.P 1 and P3, which, in any event, has been quashed by
O.P. No. 3038/2001 -: 3 :-
me, there cannot be any final decision on the question as to whether
the land in possession of the petitioners is Government land or not. It
is up to the respondents to decide that question, after conducting a
detailed enquiry with notice to the petitioners in respect of the same.
That right of the respondents is left open without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the rival contentions.
The original petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/