This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts. P2 and P12 orders passed by the 3 rd respondent and the 1st respondent respectively, whereby the lease rent of the property of the petitioner was enhanced and upheld by the respective statutory authorities. Brief material facts for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:-
2. Petitioner is a body corporate constituted by the Government under section 9 of the Kerala Sports Act, with the power to acquire, hold and dispose of movable and immovable properties and to enter into contract and do all maters proper and expedient for the purpose for which it is constituted.
3. Petitioner, in order to promote sports activities, identified an extent of 3.46 acres of land lying as revenue puramboke attached to the property of the Government Higher secondary School, Koyilandi. Accordingly, petitioner has submitted a request before the 1st respondent through the 3rd respondent to lease out of the said land to the petitioner. The request was placed before the 1 st respondent with the W.P.(C) No.26749 of 2012 -:2:- recommendation of the 3rd respondent and by Ext.P1 Government Order dated 17.12.1998, the aforesaid area of land was let out to the petitioner for twenty five years for construction of football stadium. The lease rent was fixed at 10% of the market value of Rs.41,52,000/- (Rupees forty one lakhs fifty two thousand only) per annum. Based on the aforesaid lease, petitioner constructed football stadium with a permanent gallery in a portion of the land having an extent of 59 cents. In order to generate income for payment of lease rent to Government, realization of cost of construction and maintenance of the stadium as well as payment of taxes to the statutory and legal authorities, petitioner converted the space beneath the gallery into shop rooms and let it out for commercial purposes.
4. In the year 2009, the 3rd respondent revised the lease rent with retrospective effect from 2004 -2005 onwards. Based on the revision of lease rent, the Tahsildhar, Koyilandi has issued Ext.P3 notice to the petitioner, requiring the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.2,57,76,738/- (Rupees two crore fifty seven lakhs seventy six thousand seven hundred and thirty eight only) towards lease rent and arrears, apparently on the basis of Ext.P2 proceedings of the 3rd W.P.(C) No.26749 of 2012 -:3:- respondent. Thereupon, petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 05.12.2009 before the 3 rd respondent with copy to the Tahsildar pointing out that, the revenue generated from the stadium is only Rs.10,37,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs and thirty seven thousand only), out of which, an amount of Rs.8,87,725/- (Rupees eight lakhs eighty seven thousand seven hundred and twenty five only) was expended that year for development of sports. It is also stated that, a copy of Ext.P4 was submitted before the Minister for Sports and Youth Affairs, who on receipt of representation, called for a report from the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent, in turn, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode to submit a report after verifying the accounts of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Officer has submitted a report pointing out that, on inspection, the accounts were found to be properly maintained and the Finance Officer has reported that, during the year 2009-2010, an amount of Rs.13,21,836/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs twenty one thousand eight hundred and thirty six only) had been expended by the Council, whereas the rental receipt from the Koyilandi, stadium was only Rs.12,35,828/- (Rupees twelve lakhs thirty five thousand eight hundred and twenty eight only). On the W.P.(C) No.26749 of 2012 -:4:- basis of the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, 3rd respondent sent a report to the 1 st respondent, pointing out that, only 59 cents out of the total lease out area of 3.46 Acres is being used for commercial purpose. While so, petitioner was served with Ext. P6 and P7 notices U/s. 34, 7 and 19 of Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, demanding an amount of Rs.1,69,23,244/- (Rupees one crore sixty nine lakhs twenty three thousand two hundred and forty four only) with 12% interest and also freezing the bank account maintained by the petitioner with the Kerala State Co-operative Bank, with a further direction to the bank to transfer the entire amount available in the petitioners account to the Government. Based on the directions, an amount of Rs.2,90,500/- (Rupees two lakhs ninety thousand and five hundred only) was debited from the account of the petitioner maintained with the aforesaid bank and paid to the 4 th respondent.
5. Being confronted with such a situation, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.11053 of 2011 and as per Ext.P10 judgment dated 11.01.2012, 1 st respondent was directed to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders thereon after affording an opportunity of hearing to the W.P.(C) No.26749 of 2012 -:5:- petitioner at the earliest possible time, at any rate within one month from the date of necessary papers from the 2 nd respondent. Thereafter, petitioner was served a notice of hearing and hearing was conducted on 22.03.2012. Thereafter, Ext.P12 order is passed affirming the revision of the lease rent. It is thus challenging the above specifiied orders, this writ petition is filed.
6. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions it is stated that, as per Rule 18(2) of Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 for grating lease of Government land, the assignee should in addition to the lease rent under sub-section (1) therein, deposit with Government an amount equal to the yearly rent as security. The Government initially fixed Rs.4,15,200/- (Rupees four lakhs fifteen thousand and two hundred only) as rent being 10% of the market value of the land. Petitioner had not remitted the advance lease rent and security deposit. Due to the failure of the petitioner to remit lease rent and security, there was no actual taking over of the land by the petitioner. It is also submitted that, the department of revenue is not concerned with the income earned by the venture of the assignee, and it W.P.(C) No.26749 of 2012 -:6:- is for the petitioner to find out its sources of income to remit lease rent and other dues to the Government. It is also stated that, petitioner has no right or privilege to construct the shopping complex on the Government land and the shopping complex was constructed without getting prior permission from the Government.
7. However, as per Government Order dated 14.05.2004, Government revised the lease rent and also decided to revise at intervals of every 3 years. It was further decided to settle the amount from the year 1995 to 2004 by accepting 25% of the arrear amount. Petitioner even failed to avail the concession granted by the Government. The land in question was assigned by the Government for the specific purpose of construction of football stadium. However, petitioner converted the same for commercial purposes without obtaining permission from the Government. Therefore, according to the respondents, the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner as per Exts. P6 and P7 are strictly in order and legal. It is also submitted that, Ext.P12 order is passed by the State Government in accordance with the direction contained in the judgment referred to supra, it is further submitted that, Ext.P12 order is W.P.(C) No.26749 of 2012 -:7:- passed taking in to account the entire aspects of the matter, and therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the said order, justifying interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The coercive action is initiated on the basis of failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with the directives contained in Exts.P2 and P3.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and the leaned Senior Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.
9. The sole question to be considered is, whether any manner of interference is warranted to Ext.P12 order and Ext.P2 proceedings revising the lease rent. Respective counsel appearing for the parties have advanced their arguments in accordance with the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. The sole question to be considered by this Court is, whether Ext.P12 order is passed by the State Government in accordance with the provisions of the Land Assignment Act, 1960 and Rules 1964, and in accordance with Ext.P10 judgment rendered by this Court. Para 5 of Ext.P12 is relevant to the context, which read thus:-
b