Tahsildar can permit private owners to erect gates, fences on govt land: HC

The Kerala High Court recently granted relief to two brothers who sought permission to erect a gate on a government property situated between their land and the main road.

Justice Viju Abraham observed that a Tahsildar has the authority to grant permission for erecting a wall, fence, gate or building on government land in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and Rules.

The petitioners owned two adjoining properties that together formed a single plot. A small triangular-shaped stretch of government road puramboke land lay between their property and the main road.

According to the petitioners, they had been using the puramboke land as a passage for ingress and egress to their property. They also argued that the land could not be used for any other purpose due to its shape and limited extent.

One of the petitioners later applied for permission to erect a gate on the puramboke land (government-owned, unassessed land specifically designated for public use) to access the road through the property. However, the application was rejected on the grounds that there was no provision allowing permission to erect a gate on road puramboke land.

Challenging the rejection order, the petitioners approached the High Court.

The court examined Section 5 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and Rules 32 to 37 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules before observing that while Section 5(1) prohibits unauthorised occupation of government land, it also allows occupation with government permission.

The court further noted that any person wishing to erect a wall, fence or building on government property could do so in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued by the government after submitting an application under Section 5(3) of the Act.

The court held that the Tahsildar concerned is competent to grant such permissions after following the procedures and conditions specified under the Act and Rules.

Observing that the rejection order could not be sustained, the court set it aside and permitted the petitioners to submit a fresh application under Section 5 and Rules 32 to 37 within one month.

The court also directed the Tahsildar concerned to take an appropriate decision on the application, after hearing the petitioners, within three months from the date of receipt of the application.
(With LiveLaw inputs)