IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9263 of 2010(G)
1. T.EVARIOS, S/O.TOBIAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH,
3. SASTHAMCOTTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
For Petitioner :SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL
For Respondent :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :15/07/2010
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) Nos.9263, 10492
& 11296 OF 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
These writ petitions are filed by the persons occupying
rooms in a building which, according to the petitioners, is in a
revenue puramboke land. The petitioners are aggrieved by the
action taken by the Panchayath to claim monthly rent from them.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were earlier
issued notices of eviction by the Panchayath, which were under
challenge in W.P.(C) No.16822/2007. The said writ petition was
disposed of by Exhibit P4 judgment. Therein it was submitted by
the learned counsel for the Panchayath that the land is not
vested with the Panchayath but with the Government and
accordingly, this Court quashed the notices. It is, therefore,
contended that the Panchayath cannot direct the petitioners to
remit monthly rent as they are not having any right or ownership
over the land in question. This is the substantial contention
raised by the petitioners.
W.P.(C) No.9263/10 & conn. cases 2
3. The Panchayath has filed a detailed counter affidavit. It
is pointed out that by Exhibit P1 judgment in an original petition
filed by the Panchayath, this Court had directed the Government
to decide the contentious issues between the Government and
the Panchayath and accordingly, the Government passed
Exhibit P2 order. After examining various matters, the
Government found that 2.50 Acres of market puramboke land is
vested with the Panchayath only for proper maintenance,
management and control of the land. The said land has not been
transferred to the Panchayath and hence the Panchayath has no
claim over the land and other land adjoining to it.
4. It is pointed out that the Panchayath had entered into an
agreement with the Government, copy of which is produced as
Exhibit R3(b). Thereafter a loan of Rs.2 lakhs was sanctioned by
the Government for the construction of Shopping Centre. It is,
therefore, pointed out that the Panchayath is having the right for
proper maintenance, management and control of the land and
building and only in exercise of the said right, the Panchayath has
demanded payment of rent from the petitioners. It is also
W.P.(C) No.9263/10 & conn. cases 3
submitted that the parties have separately executed agreements
with the Panchayath for the rental arrangement and in that view
of the matter, they cannot take a stand that the Panchayath
cannot demand any rent from the occupiers concerned.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
stand of the Panchayath in the counter affidavit cannot be
accepted in the light of the explicit stand taken by the
Panchayath in the earlier writ petition which was disposed of by
Exhibit P4 judgment wherein the Panchayath had stated before
this Court that the land is vested with the Government. Therefore
it is submitted that now they are estopped from demanding rent.
It is therefore submitted that the Panchayath cannot take a
different stand in these proceedings and the petitioners want only
a proper quietus to the issue and they are not averse to the idea
of paying money to the Government also.
6. To appreciate the above contention, we will have to refer
to the judgment Exhibit P1. In fact, the said judgment was
rendered in an original petition filed by the Panchayath itself.
Therein the claim raised by the Panchayath was that the entire
W.P.(C) No.9263/10 & conn. cases 4
Puramboke land of 10 Acres and 98 cents is vested with the
Panchayath in view of Section 221 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj
Act. This Court did not go into the dispute regarding the question
of fact and ultimately directed the Government to look into the
matter. Exhibit P2 is the consequential order issued by the
Government later.
7. Evidently, the Government was of the view that out of
10 Acres and 98 cents, 2.50 Acres of market puramboke land is
vested with the Sasthamkotta Grama Panchayath only for proper
maintenance, management and control of the land. The above
land was not ‘transferred’ to the Panchayath. The Government
was also of the view that the property is vested with the
Panchayath but it was not actually transferred to the Panchayath.
Of course, vesting is limited for the purpose of proper
maintenance, management and control of the land.
8. Herein, the case is that in exercise of the right of
management, tenants were inducted by the Panchayath in the
market area after constructing the buildings in the Shopping
Centre. Therefore, as the Panchayath is exercising their right of
W.P.(C) No.9263/10 & conn. cases 5
management, it was well within their rights to induct tenants.
Evidently, they had control of the market area which right has
been recognised by the Government in Exhibit P2. It cannot be
disputed that in exercise of the said power only they have
inducted the tenants.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that
the stand taken herein will totally go against the stand taken by
the Panchayath which was recorded in Exhibit P4 judgment. Of
course, therein the learned counsel for the Panchayath submitted
that the Government has decided that the land in question does
not vest with the Panchayath. The said statement has to be
appreciated in the light of the fact that notices for eviction were
under challenge in the said writ petition and the issue was
whether it is for the Panchayath or for the Government to take
steps to evict the occupants like the petitioners. That does not
mean that the right of management which was recognised by the
Government as per Exhibit P2 and which includes the right to
have proper maintenance and control is anyway whittled down.
Further this Court did not restrain the Panchayath from
W.P.(C) No.9263/10 & conn. cases 6
proceeding with the steps also. Notices were quashed for
violation of principles of natural justice only.
10. Evidently, herein there are agreements executed by
various tenants including all the petitioners. Therefore, there is a
contractual arrangement between the petitioners and the
Panchayath. In that view of the matter, at this stage, the
petitioners cannot disclaim the right of management of the
Panchayath by contending that the land is not transferred to the
Panchayath.
In that view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with
the demands raised by the Panchayath towards monthly rent.
Therefore, these writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed.
If the petitioners have got any dispute with respect to the
quantum of rent claimed by the Panchayath, it will be open to
them to file appropriate objections with regard to the same. The
petitioners will pay the amount covered by the notices produced
in these writ petitions within a period of one month. No costs.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE
smp