IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19532 of 2009(J)
1. VEERAN,
... Petitioner
2. RAJAN S/O.PAZHANIMALA,
3. KAMALAM, W/O.PREMKUMAR,
Vs
1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALAPPILLY TALUK,
... Respondent
2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN (1)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :16/07/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
.......................
W.P.(C).19532/2009
.......................
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
1st petitioner applied for assignment of land in terms
of Section 96 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. One Acre
of land lying in Survey No.38 of Talappilly Taluk,
Vadakkethara Village, was offered to be assigned by the
4th respondent, as evidenced by Ext.P1. Purchase price was
fixed at Rs.500/- in lump or in 16 equal monthly
instalments. The property covered by Ext.P1 was in the
possession of other persons. Therefore, there was a fresh
offer of assignment as evidenced by Ext.P2 for an equal
extent of land. Petitioner came into possession of the land
covered by Ext.P2, reportedly in the year 1976. 1st
petitioner claims that he has paid 1st instalment for the
land in the year 1976.
2. In the meanwhile, 1st petitioner entered into an
agreement for sale of the property in favour of the 2nd
petitioner. Thereafter, the matter reached the Civil Court
vide O.S.No.260/1998 instituted by the 2nd petitioner for
W.P.(C).19532/09
2
specific performance. Ext.P3 judgment and decree was
passed by the Munsiff Court and according to the 1st
petitioner, pursuant to the execution of the sale deed in
enforcement of the decree, possession of the property was
transferred from the 1st petitioner to petitioners 2 and 3.
3. In the meanwhile, since the 1st petitioner himself
has not derived title to the property he proceeded with
his request for a confirmation of the assignment. This
was directed to be considered by this Court vide Ext.P7
judgment. Government proceeded to consider the same.
But by Ext.P8 order, Government not only declined
confirmation of the assignment but also directed
resumption of the land on the ground that the 1st
petitioner had violated the conditions by which excess
land could be assigned under the provisions of Section 96
of the Act. Ext.P8 is under challenge in the writ petition.
4. I heard Mr.Madhu Radhakrishnan, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Mr.P.Narayanan, learned senior
Government Pleader.
W.P.(C).19532/09
3
5. The direction issued by this Court in Ext.P7
judgment was to the Government to consider the 1st
petitioner’s request for a confirmation of the assignment.
That could have been declined. But a decision to resume
the land after cancellation of the offer made as early as in
the year 1976, should have been preceded by a specific
notice containing a proposal to do so, followed by a
hearing of the affected parties, and then followed by an
order in terms of the provisions of the Act. That has not
been done in the present case.
6. Accordingly, Ext.P8 is set aside. Government is
directed to pass fresh orders as already directed in Ext.P7
judgment. But if the Government proposes to resume the
land, then reasons for such resumption and reasons for
the proposal, should be communicated by a specific show
cause notice addressed to the 1st petitioner and he
should also be given an opportunity to defend the
proposal and an enquiry shall be conducted. Final
orders in this regard shall be passed within four months
W.P.(C).19532/09
4
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 1st
petitioner will be entitled to defend the proposal by taking
up all contentions permissible in law. Status quo as on
date shall be maintained till fresh orders are passed by
the Government.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs