A. NEELAKANTA IYER Vs. STATE OF TRAVANCORE-COCHIN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226, Constitution of India, for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction. The petitioner himself argued the petition before me. The first respondent to the petition is the Travancore -Cochin State. The second respondent is the Vadakkunathan Devaswom, represented by the Secretary Cochin Devaswom Board. The third respondent represents Mampilli Illom, Trichur. The petitioner was a clerk in the Cochin Devaswom Department which was being managed by the Government. He took on lease a house site, 241/8 cents in extent, belonging to the Vadakkunathan Devaswom within the Trichur Municipality. The lease was of the year 1114. According to the petitioner, the plot was covered with jungle growth when he took it on lease and he cleared the Jungle growth and levelled up the property at considerable cost. He also put up a substantial building in the property and was living in it with his family. The cost of improvements is stated to be about Rs. 5000/ -. On the complaint of the third respondent Mana, the Devaswom took steps for evicting the petitioner about three years after the date of the lease deed.

(2.) THE second respondent, Devaswom Board, has filed a counter -affidavit. It is stated in the counter -affidavit that the lease in favour of the petitioner was of a temporary character and that the petitioner was bound to surrender the property on demand by the Devaswom without claiming any value of improvements. The allegation in the petition that the property was covered with jungle growth is also denied. The cost of the building constructed by the petitioner was only about Rs. 1500/ - The plot in question formed part of the purayidom in the possession of the third respondent -mana from time immemorial. The mana was in possession of the property by virtue of the hereditary office occupied by a member of the mana as the High priest of vadakkunathan temple. On the complaint of the mana, Government held proper enquiry into the matter and cancelled the lease in favour of the petitioner. Although the petitioner was not entitled to any compensation for improvements he was allowed Rs. 1607 -6 -6 as compensation, the amount having been fixed by the Chief Engineer. The petitioner delayed surrender of the property by putting forth claims for more amount as compensation.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner is that the order of the Government cancelling the lease in his favour and demanding surrender of the property was illegal and 'ultra vires'. In the light of the events that took place subsequent to this order, it is not necessary to consider the legality of the action of the Government in this respect. As a result of the Proclamation, VI of 1117, the petitioner got fixity of tenure and he was not evicted from the property as per the order of Government. The property was actually acquired by Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In the circumstances it is not necessary to go into the question whether the action of the Government in ordering surrender of the property by the petitioner was illegal or 'ultra vires'. It may also be observed that the property being within the Municipality of Trichur is exempted from the operation of the Cochin Verumpattomdars Act, VIII of 1118, which was enacted subsequently. After the passing of that Act there could be no fixity of tenure in respect of the leasehold over this property.