IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15559 of 2008(B)
1. SREE VIDYA VARDHAKHA HIGH SCHOOL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUE,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD.
4. THE TAHSILDAR, KASARAGOD.
5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :23/06/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.15559 of 2008
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is Sree Vidya Vardhakha High School, an
aided High School, having High School section only. It is stated
that the school was started in the year 1966. The school is
situated in R.S.No.30/6 A of Meenja Village in Kasaragod Taluk.
It is stated that adjacent to the school compound, larger extent
of Government properties are available as purampoke land.
2. The petitioner applied to the Government for
assignment of an extent of 3.78 acres of land. The application
was routed through the District Educational Officer, Kasaragod.
It is stated that the Tahsildar and District Collector reported that
the request made by the petitioner is genuine. The files were
forwarded to the Land Revenue Commissioner who forwarded
the same to the Government. It is stated that since the petitioner
did not get any information, he applied under the Right to
Information Act to the Tahsildar who issued Ext.P1 dated
WPC No.15559/2008 2
24.2.2008 to the petitioner stating that the application for
assignment was rejected by the Land Revenue Commissioner as
per letter dated 26.12.2007. The petitioner again applied under
the Right to Information Act to the District Collector, Kasaragod
to supply copy of the letter referred to in Ext.P1. Thereafter, the
petitioner received Ext.P5 from the District Collector. Ext.P5 is a
letter issued by the Land Revenue Commissioner to the District
Collector in which it is stated that the proposal for assignment of
land was rejected by the Government and the records were sent
back. The order passed by the Government was not
communicated along with Ext.P5. It is not produced along with
the counter affidavit also. It is not known whether the
Government has properly considered the matter. The contention
of the petitioner is that he was not heard by any of the
authorities before rejecting the application for assignment of
land.
3. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash Ext.P5
order and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the
Commissioner for Land Revenue to hear the petitioner and pass
WPC No.15559/2008 3
fresh orders. There is also a prayer for declaration that the
petitioner is entitled to the assignment of an extent of 3.78 acres
of land.
4. The Under Secretary, Revenue Department has filed a
counter affidavit. In paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit, it is
stated as follows:
“The Manager, Vidya Vardhaka High School,
Meeyapadavu of Meenja Village had applied
for assignment of 3.78 Acres of land in R.S.
No. 30/1 C2, 29/1B1B3, 30/1E1A1H and R.S.
No.30/1E1AM of Meenja Village for the
purpose of school play ground. Out of the
above 3.78 acres of Land 0.71 Acres of Land in
R.S.No.30/1C1 has already been de-reserved
from SC/ST category to G.A. Category as per
District Collectors proceedings No.C2-47084/86
(1) dated 6.6.90. From the remaining lands
measuring 1.74 acres in R.S.No.29/1B1B3, 1.20
acres in R.S.No.30/1E1A1H and 0.13 acres in
RS No.30/1E1AM of Meenja Village is set apart
for public purpose category and which is de-
reserved and made available for assignment
under GA category and proposed in favour of
WPC No.15559/2008 4
the Manager Vidhya Vardhaka High School
Meeyapadavu as per the proceedings No.C2-
30102/04 dated 16.2.2006. These procedures
were taken under the provisions of Institutional
Assignment Rules, and KLA Act, 1964 in favour
of the petitioner of the above Writ Petition.”
5. From the counter affidavit, it is, prima facie, clear that
the land is available for assignment. However, in paragraph 5 of
the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner has no right
over the property. Paragraph 5 is quoted below:
“The LA proposal submitted in favour of
the petitioner was not considered by the
Government. The Government sanction is
inevitable for the institutional Land
Assignment. In this case, respondents 2 to 4
obeyed the order of the Government and
Government decision was conveyed to the
petitioner in time. Hence, there is no violation
of natural justice and it safeguards the interest
of Government. The land under proposal is GA
land on the basis of de-reservation proposal.
The petitioner has no right over the property,
now the Institution is utilising the Government
WPC No.15559/2008 5
land without permission of the fourth
respondent and the fourth respondent is
responsible for the eviction of encroachment
from the Government properties on each and
every case reported.”
6. The application for assignment of land was disposed
of by the Government under the Kerala Land Assignment Act and
the relevant rules. There is no record to indicate that the
Government considered the matter after affording an
opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and after taking into
account all the relevant facts. It is alleged that the report
submitted by the Tahsildar and the District Collector were also
not taken note of. There is no speaking order stating reasons for
rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner. In these
circumstances, Ext.P5 order is liable to be quashed.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, Ext.P5 letter No.LR(J)6-
58515/07(2) dated 26.12.2007 issued by the Land Revenue
Commissioner is quashed. The Government shall consider the
application for assignment made by the petitioner afresh, after
WPC No.15559/2008 6
affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and
after calling for the report of the Tahsildar and the District
Collector. All the relevant records shall be placed before the
Government to enable the Government to take a proper and just
decision. The Government shall pass final orders within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the
judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner. The petitioner shall produce copy of the Writ Petition
along with the exhibits, copy of the counter affidavit and
certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent.
The Writ Petition is allowed as above.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl