HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)The short question for determination in this writ application is whether the District Collector has authority to pass an order under S.5(2) of the Kerala Ryotwari Tenants' Protection Ordinance, 1962. The relationship of landlordand tenant is disputed and has not been settled.
(2.)The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land, of which according to him, the first respondent is the tenant. The latter made an application within the time specified by the rules framed under the above Act to the District Collector. It is alleged in the affidavit in support of this writ application, and it has not been controverted by any counter affidavit either by the first respondent or by the State, that the first respondent is the tenant of the writ applicant.
(3.)On the above facts, Ext. P. 2 order has been passed by the District Collector. The relevant portion of that order reads as follows:
"The applicant and the respondents were present. The respondents represented that the lands specified in the application are not their (Sic). From the evidence before me I am convinced that the entire crop grown on this land in the possession of the applicant has been damaged completely. I, therefore, hereby order that under S.5(2) of the Kerala Ryotwari Tenants Protection Ordinance, 1962, the total annual rent due from the land in the possession of the applicant be remitted in full for this year."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.