IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 36878 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. E.S.NASAR, S/O.SYED MUHAMMED, ELAVUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, OLIKKAVU, NADAKKAL P.O., ERATTUPETTA - 686 124. 2. K.R.RAJEEV, KARITHADATHIL, KOLAHALAMEDU, VAGAMON, PEERUMADE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SMT.MOLLY KOSHY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ADDL.CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE (A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 602. 4. THE SUB COLLECTOR, DEVIKULAM - 685 613. 5. ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PEERUMEDU - 685 531. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN FOR R1 TO R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 36878 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 25th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P1, P5, and P7. 2. Ext.P3 is a patta issued to the second petitioner, which was transferred in favour of the first petitioner as per Ext.P3(a). Subsequently, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P4 show cause notice proposing to cancel the patta for the reasons mentioned therein. Reply was submitted and the matter was considered. By Ext.P5, the patta was cancelled. Appeal was filed to the 3rd respondent and that was rejected by Ext.P7. Further revision filed to the 1st respondent also was rejected as per Ext.P1. It is these orders which are under challenge. 3. Although various contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners seeking to invalidate the impugned orders, a statement has been filed by the learned Government Pleader on the instructions of the respondents, which interalia reveal the following:- (1) The land in question was not included in the assignable WPC No. 36878/10 :2 : list of lands to be prepared under Rule 11 of the Land Assignment Rules. (2) That the unoccupied land assigned on registry shall not be alienated for a period of three years from the date of registry and that the assignment of land was as per Ext.P3 dated 23/3/2002 and that the same was assigned by Ext.P3 (a) dated 3/6/2004 is in violation of Rule 8(1A) of the Rules. (3) That Assignment was obtained fraudulently. 4. Even if the third of the aforesaid reasons is eschewed from consideration, there is absolutely no answer in so far as the reasons (1) and (2) are concerned. If that be so, cancellation of the assignment or its confirmation by the appellate and revisional authorities do not call for interference by this Court in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp