Petitioner is a lady aged 63 years at the time of filing this writ petition. She is approaching this court aggrieved by the rejection of her application for assignment of 1.41 Ares of puramboke land comprised in Re-Sy No.45 (old Sy. No.120/5B) of Block No.9 of Thekkekara Village in Alappuzha District. According to the petitioner, the property came into possession of her predecessors in interest long back and from 1956 onwards the predecessors were paying 'prohibitory' tax in respect of the said property in the file LC No.296/56. Possession of the property devolved upon the petitioner about 20 years back. The petitioner is residing in a hut situated within the said property. It is pointed out that certain adjacent properties owned by others were already assigned by the Government. The petitioner approached the 2nd respondent in Ext.P2 application as early as in the year 1999. But no action was W.P.(c) No. 4178/2010 -2- taken based on the said application for quite a long time. Therefore the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application in the proper format seeking assignment of the land, in the year 2007. The 2nd respondent had taken steps to obtain report from the Village Officer concerned. Exhibit P4 report and Ext.P5 mahazer submitted by the 3rd respondent would indicate that the petitioner is in possession of the property in question since the last more than 18 years and that she is residing in the said property in a building bearing No.2/171. Despite receipt of Exts.P4 & P5 reports and mahazer, the 2nd respondent has not proceeded further the matter. Hence the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent in Ext.P6 representation. Still there was no response from the side of the 2nd respondent. Therefore the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation before the hon'ble Chief Minister in the "Sutharya Keralam" programme. It is evident from Ext.P8 that on the basis of Ext.P7 representation the Government have called for a report from the 1st respondent. In Ext.P8 it was reported by the 1st respondent W.P.(c) No. 4178/2010 -3- that the property having an extent of 1.41 Ares include 78 Sq.Mtrs. of road margin which is required for widening of the road. However it is stated that the 2nd respondent had reported that action is being pursued for assigned of the balance extent of 63 Sq.Mtrs. It is revealed that, eventhough report was submitted to the 1st respondent that proceedings is pursued for assignment of 63 Sq.Mtrs. of land, the 2nd respondent had requested the 3rd respondent through Ext.P10 letter to prepare documents for assignment of road puramboke land in the possession of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent had also called for a report from the Executive Engineer of the PWD (Roads Division) seeking opinion about assignment of 78 Sq.Mtrs. road puramboke land in favour of the petitioner. Ultimately the 2nd respondent had issued Ext.P13 letter to the petitioner informing that the application of the petitioner for assignment of 78 Sq.Mtrs. puramboke land was rejected because the authorities of the PWD had objected assignment of any road puramboke or road margin. It is W.P.(c) No. 4178/2010 -4- challenging Ext.P13, this writ petition is filed. Inter alia the petitioner is seeking direction commanding the 2nd respondent to re-consider Ext.P3 application and to pass appropriate orders thereon.
2. Contention of the petitioner mainly based on Ext.P3 application and the report and mahazer submitted by the 3rd respondent, as per Exts.P4 & P5. It is evident from Exts.P3, P4 & P5 that the petitioner is in possession of 1.41 Ares of property wherein she is residing in a building bearing No.2/171. From Ext.P8 report submitted by the 1st respondent it is revealed that the 2nd respondent had reported that out of the total extent of 1.41 Ares sought to be assigned, an extent of 78 Sq.Mtrs. is road margin, which is required for expansion of the road. In Ext.P8 it is categorically stated that the 2nd respondent had reported that action is being pursued for assignment of the balance extent of 63 Sq.Mtrs. But it is pertinent to note that thereafter the 2nd respondent had pursued further proceedings as if the petitioner is seeking assignment of 78 W.P.(c) No. 4178/2010 -5- Sq.Mtrs. of road puramboke and that the said request cannot be acceded to in view of the objections raised by the authorities of the PWD.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, even if there is any objection for assignment of 78 Sq.Mtrs. of road puramboke (road margin) the 2nd respondent has to consider assignment of the balance extent of 63 Sq.Mtrs. in view of Exts.P4 & P5 report. This court is of the considered opinion that contention in this respect deserves merit. It is for the 2nd respondent to consider whether the balance extent of property in the possession of the petitioner, after setting apart the road puramboke, can be assigned or not, taking into consideration of the prolonged possession and occupation of the said property by the petitioner. Interest of justice will be achieved by directing the 2nd respondent to take an appropriate decision on the above aspect, without any further delay.
4. Therefore the writ petition is allowed to the extent of quashing Ext.P13. The 2nd respondent is directed to re- W.P.(c) No. 4178/2010 -6- consider the matter in the light of Ext.P3 application based on Exts.P4 and P5 report and mahazer submitted by the 3rd respondent. A decision as to whether the balance extent of puramboke land in the possession of the petitioner, leaving an extent of 78 Sq.Mtrs. of road puramboke can be assigned in favour of the petitioner has to be decided by the 2nd respondent, taking note of the materials available. A decision in this regard shall be taken at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE AMG True copy P.A. to Judge