THIRUVANKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 4th respondent, a public sector petroleum company, needed certain lands for the purpose of the construction of an oil tank storage complex. An item of land in Kanayannur Taluk was identified for that purpose. The Tahsildar wrote to the first petitioner panchayat, requiring its consent for assignment, since that item of land was one that vested in that panchayat. On 08/09/1987, the panchayat resolved to transfer that land to the company for value to be determined by the Tahsildar. Since that was getting held up, the panchayat moved this Court and obtained a direction to the Government to finalise the issue of payment by the company to the panchayat. Since nothing turned out even three years after the aforesaid judgment, the panchayat, through its counsel, wrote to the secretary to Government that appropriate action be taken.

(2.) More than six months thereafter, the impugned Ext. P16 is issued by the Government secretary to the counsel for the petitioners stating that the 'claim of the panchayat for land value is absurd and all the more absurd is the action of the panchayat in having filed a writ petition using tax payers' and Government grant against the same Government, that had vested the land in first place'. That statement is made on the premise that the land in question is thodu puramboke (river bed not belonging to any private party) and its vesting in the panchayat gives only vestiture rights and not ownership rights. It is also stated in that communication that law also provides for assuming the administration of the vested lands after consulting with the panchayat and not with concurrence. It was stated that the value of the land could be claimed only by a person, who has ownership right and that thodu puramboke being Government land, Government has the indisputable right to divest land and dispose of it in the manner they deem fit and land value, if any, realised would go to the consolidated fund of the State, This writ petition is filed by the panchayat challenging the decision contained in that communication.

(3.) In the first place, when this Court had directed the Government to take a decision, that was not a matter to be slept over for three years. When a reminder was placed, it required expeditious disposal. That also did not happen. The matter was dragged for another six months.