IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28353 of 2004(A)
1. SMT.REETHA RICHARD, W/O. LATE RICHARD
... Petitioner
2. PAUL D'COTHA, S/O. LATE RICHER D'COTHA,
Vs
1. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, MINICOY,
... Respondent
2. THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF
For Petitioner :SRI.K.L.JOSEPH
For Respondent :SRI.SHAFIK M.ABDULKHADIR,SC,LAKSHADWEEP
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :24/06/2009
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C)No. 28353 OF 2004
------------------------------
Dated this the 24 thday of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
———————-
1. Petitioners are the wife and son of a deceased Ex-
serviceman, Mr. Richard D’cotha, who died on 7.8.1972. After
retirement from Army, the SS&A Board, Thiruvananthapuram,
had selected the deceased for settlement at Laccadive, Minicoy
and Aminidiv Islands (LM&A Islands) in Union Territory of
Laccadive, under a scheme for settlement of Ex-servicemen. By
Ext.P1 he was intimated about the selection and the deceased
was requested to furnish certain details. Thereafter through
Ext.P2 his willingness to move with family on short notice to
Islands, was ascertained. Further Ext.P3 letter was issued by
the Secretary of the 2nd respondent, permitting the husband of
the 1st petitioner to proceed to ‘Minicoy’ along with his family
and to report before the Station House Officer, Minicoy on their
arrival, within 24 hours. The Secretary of the State SS&A Board
had thereafter issued Ext.P4 requiring the deceased Mr. Richard
D’cotha to report at the Calicult office of the 2nd respondent on
24.3.1972 to enable to take him to the settlement area.
Accordingly the entire family had moved to the Minicoy Island
W.P.(C).28353/2004 2
during the year 1972 and settled there with effect from
24.3.1972 onwards.
2. It is submitted that after settlement in Minicoy in the
year 1972, the family made cultivations in the surrounding land
having extent of about 1 Acre, and various trees like coconut
was planted therein. According to the petitioners, they were
taking usufructs therefrom. But shortly after the settlement, the
husband of the 1st petitioner died, on 7.8.1972. The grievance of
the petitioners voiced in this writ petition is that, inspite of
prolonged stay of the petitioner’s family therein for more than
3= decades, they were not issued with any document conferring
title on the house and the property. According to the petitioners
the area now in their occupation is having an extent of about 30
Cents. They have approached the 2nd respondent through Ext.P5
representation for granting ‘pattayam’ for the land, but no
positive response received in this regard so far, is the complaint.
3. Ext.P5 is dated 16.1.1991. The petitioner had
produced Ext.P6, copy of a message sent by the Deputy Collector
of Minicoy to the Land Revenue Commissioner at Kavarathi. It is
evident from Ext.P6, dated 1.6.2004, that the Land Revenue
Commissioner was requested to take action to settle the issue
after tracing out records pertaining to settlement of the
deceased and also a copy of the scheme for settlement. But
W.P.(C).28353/2004 3
nothing turned out so far, is the submission.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the learned standing counsel appearing for the
respondents. Along with the counter affidavit of respondents the
relevant extract of the scheme, by which the settlement was
effected, is produced as Ext.R1. Clause 4(a) of Ext.R1 reads as
follows:
“(a) Each settler will be provided with a house
built by Government at cost of Rs.4150/-. 50%
of the cost of each house will be treated as
grant and the remaining 50% of the cost will be
treated as loan which will be recovered from
the settler in the form of rent at Rs.10/- per
month. If the settler proves satisfactory, he
may be allowed to enter into possession of the
house after the loan has been fully repaid.”
Relying on the above clause the respondents contended that
there was no allotment of any land under the scheme and what
was alloted is only a Quarter– a house built by the Government
at a cost of Rs.4150/-. It is contended that as per the scheme
the allottee was bound to pay 50% of the cost through monthly
rent @ Rs.10/-. But since the death of the allottee, the husband
of the 1st petitioner, the said payment was not made so far. It is
stated in the counter affidavit that the family of the allottee were
permitted to stay therein even after death of the allottee, and
that three of his children were given employment under the
Administration, after providing free education. With respect to
W.P.(C).28353/2004 4
Ext.P6 message it is stated that the Deputy Collector of Minicoy
had suggested consideration to give ‘pattayam’ for the house
allotted, and the matter is under examination.
5. Considering the rival contentions it is evident that
inspite of settlement of the family of the Ex-serviceman in the
year 1972 under the beneficiary scheme, and inspite of his death
during that year itself, no fair and reasonable action was taken
from the side of the authorities to assign his family members
with the title of the house. The representations of the family
members in this regard has not been dealt with any proper
response, since the last more than three decades. From the
contentions in the counter affidavit it seems that the only hurdle
is for allotment of any land as claimed by the petitioner. But
there is no convincing reason for denying ownership of the house
to the legal heirs or dependents of the allotee. Eventhough it is
contended that they have failed to remit 50% of the cost of the
Quarter, amounting to Rs.4150/-, there is absolutely no
contention nor any document to show that any demand for such
payment was ever made, informing willingness of the authorities
for allotment of the Quarter on payment of such amount.
Therefore I am constrained to hold that there is laches or rather
negligence on the part of the respondents in dealing with the
long pending issue of a helpless widow of an Ex-serviceman, who
W.P.(C).28353/2004 5
is settled in the Island far away from their native place.
6. Under the above circumstances it is only just and
proper that the respondents should take immediate steps for
issuance of necessary document conveying title of the Quarter
allotted to Late Mr.Richard D’cotha, in favour of the 1st
petitioner, after collecting 50% cost of the Quarter as prescribed
under the clause 4(a) of Ext.R1 scheme. While making such
conveyance the authority concerned should specify the extent of
land in which the Quarter is situated, the ownership of which is
being transferred. The 2nd respondent is hereby directed to
complete the proceedings as above,as early as possible, at any
rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb