High Court Kerala High Court

Roy Charles vs State Of Kerala on 11 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
Roy Charles vs State Of Kerala on 11 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 13038 of 2008(B)


1. ROY CHARLES , S/O LATE CHARLIE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

4. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD

5. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :11/06/2008

 O R D E R
                           S.SIRI JAGAN, J
                     = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                      W.P.(C).No. 13038 OF 2008
                       = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                  Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008.

                            J U D G M E N T

The petitioner claims that certain properties which originally

belonged to his late father devolved on him by succession. That

property is stated to have been originally leased out to M/s

Burmah Shell Oil Company. By virtue of the provisions of the

Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1976, the

said land was taken over by the Government and assigned to the

4th respondent who continued to continue to occupy the same.

Ultimately the land was surrendered by the 4th respondent to the

Government. The petitioner now claims that since the property

belongs to him, the Government is bound to re-convey the same

to the petitioner.

2. The learned standing counsel for the 5th respondent

would contend that the land has already been assigned to the

Kerala State Housing Board. The standing counsel for the 4th

respondent would submit that the 4th respondent did not have

any kind of dealings with the petitioner and they never paid any

rent to the petitioner or his predecessor. They are also not aware

W.P.(C).No. 13038 OF 2008 2

of any lease in respect of the property.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the land being

that of the petitioner the Government could not have assigned it

to the Housing Board. The petitioner therefore seeks the

following reliefs:

1) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, directing respondents 1 and 2 to take a
decision regarding the representations made by the petitioner,
including Ext.P2, in respect of the property having an extent of
143 cents comprised in Sy.No.229 of Ernakulam village and re-
convey the same to the petitioner and other legal heirs of late
Charlie to whom the property originally belonged.

2) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to
proceed with the action initiated to grant Pattayam in respect
of the property situated in Sy.No.229 of Ernakulam village to
the 5th respondent.

4. I am of opinion that these are all disputed questions of

facts which cannot gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India. In such circumstances, the petitioner submits that he

has already moved the Government by fling Ext.P3 and therefore

the Government may be directed to dispose of the same. In the

facts and circumstances of a case, I feel that the request of the

petitioner can be allowed.

W.P.(C).No. 13038 OF 2008 3

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of

with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass

appropriate orders on Ext.P3 as expeditiously as possible at any

rate within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to all

concerned. It would be open to the petitioner to place all such

documents which according to him would support his contentions,

which shall be considered by the Government. The petitioner

shall forward a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy

of the writ petition to the 1st respondent for compliance. But I

make it clear that I have not considered any of the contentions of

the petitioner or merit and it is open to the Government to

consider all issues involved in the matter independently including

the questions as to, even if originally the land belonged to the

petitioner’s father, the petitioner can at this point of time claim

any right over the property, and whether there was any lease in

respect of the property executed by the petitioner or his

predecessor in interest at all.

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
bkn/-