IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 15740 of 2011(N) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER : - ---------------------- ANNAMMA @ ANNAM, W/O. LATE XAVIER, VEVKATTU HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENTS : - -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN: 682 030. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 686 661. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN: 682 030. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUTHANCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 682 308. R1- R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15740 of 2011(N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT P1 : COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, THIRUVANKULAM PANCHAYATH, DATED 26.12.1995. EXT P2 : COPY OF THE IDENTITIY CARD OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER, DATED 01.09.1997. EXT P3 : COPY OF THE REPORT ALONG WITH THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE 4th RESPONDENT, DATED 08.01.2007. EXT P4 : COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE TAHSILDAR, RESPONDENT NO.3 TO R.D.O, RESPONDENT NO.2, DATED 15.12.2008. EXT P5 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2nd RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA, DATED 10.12.2009. EXT P6 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. 13830/2010 DATED 03.09.2010. EXT P7 : COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 2nd RESPONDENT TO THE 1st RESPONDENT NO.1, DATED 25.01.2011. EXT P8 : COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 2nd RESPONDENT, DATED 21.02.2011. EXT P9 : COPY OF THE DECISION OF RESPONDENT NO.1, DATED 29.03.2011. EXT P9 (a) : COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 TO THE PETITIONER, DATED 19.04.2011. EXT P10 : COPY OF THE PATTA WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OF ACHUTHAN NARAYANANKUTTY ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ASSIGNMENT, PERUMBAVOOR, DATED 24.01.1970. EXT P11 : COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF VADAVUKODE PUTHENCRUZ GRAMA PANCHAYAT, DATED 15.01.2008. EXT P12 : COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED UNDER RULE 12 (1) OF THE LAND ASSIGNMENT RULES, DATED 05.11.2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT R3 (a) : COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUVANKULAM DATED 07.01.2007. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE DMR/- ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).15740/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the wife of late Sri.Xavier. According to the petitioner, their properties were acquired for the purpose of establishing FACT, Cochin Division and that, as a part of rehabilitation package, 3.9 Ares of property, which is now situated in R.S.No.5/12, Block No.38 of Puthencruz Village, was allotted to Sri.Xavier and he was put in possession of the said plot. 2. Going by the pleadings, it is evident that the allotment was in the year 1967. However, patta was not issued. While Xavier continued in possession of the said land and was residing there with his family, he expired on 18.12.1995. Subsequently, on 7.10.2006 petitioner, the wife of the deceased, applied for assignment of the said 3.9 Ares of land. 3. In Ext.P6 judgment rendered in W.P.(C).13830/2010, this Court directed the respondents to consider the application. Accordingly, W.P.(C).15740/11 2 Revenue Divisional Officer conducted an enquiry and Ext.P7 report was submitted. In this report it was stated that records were not available and that on payment of the land value, the land could be assigned to the petitioner. However, by Ext.P9, the District Collector rejected the application on the ground that the family of the petitioner has other landed properties, consisting of 1.43 acres in Thiruvankulam Village itself. The decision of the District Collector was conveyed to the petitioner as per Ext.P9(a) communication of the RDO. It is in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Exts.P9 and P9(a) and to direct the respondents to assign the land in question. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent in which it is stated that records could not be traced indicating that anybody has been assigned land as part of rehabilitation package or that the owners of the properties in the neighbouring lands of the petitioner, have acquired patta for their respective plots on that basis. It is also stated that there is no record to indicate that the petitioner was put in possession of the plot on the basis of any W.P.(C).15740/11 3 rehabilitation package. It is further stated that family of the petitioner owns 1.43 acres of land in Thiruvankulam Village and therefore, they are ineligible for assignment of any land. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. If, as stated by the petitioner, her husband was put in possession of 3.9 Ares of land as part of any rehabilitation package consequent on the acquisition of their property for FACT, Cochin Division, the fact that the family of the petitioner is in possession of other land, will not by itself dis-entitle the petitioner from getting assignment of the land in question. However, the question is whether the alleged induction of the petitioner's husband into the property was as part of the rehabilitation package. 7. While the respondents contend that there are no records to substantiate this plea of the petitioner, petitioner relies on Exts.P3 and P4. Ext.P3 is the report of the Village Officer, Puthencruz dated W.P.(C).15740/11 4 8.1.2007 and Ext.P4 is the report of the Tahsildar to the RDO dated 15.12.2008. Both these reports suggest that the land in question was allotted as part of a rehabilitation package as claimed by the petitioner, although the basis of such conclusion is not disclosed in either of the reports. 8. However, these documents were not referred to by the District Collector while issuing Ext.P9 and if these documents were referred, the conclusion of the District Collector may not have been the same. In any case, Exts.P3 and P4 are the documents which are relevant to the issue and ought to have been referred to before final decision in the matter was taken. Therefore, this is a case where Ext.P9 order has been passed by the District Collector without taking into account relevant materials. 9. For the above reason, I quash Ext.P9 and consequently Ext.P9 (a). First respondent is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for assignment of 3.9 Ares of land situated in R.S. No.5/12, Block No.38 of Puthencruz Village, with notice to the W.P.(C).15740/11 5 petitioner and duly adverting to Exts.P3 and P4 referred to above. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs /true copy/ P.A. To Judge