IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011/30TH KARTHIKA 1933 WPC.No. 28346 of 2005 (Y) ================== PETITIONER: ======== 1 SEETHARAMA ALVA, S/O.NANJAPPA ALVA, AGED 60 YEARS R/O. "GUTHU" KIDOOR VILLAGE P.O.ICHILAMPADY KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV.SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENTS: ========== 1 SMT. YAMUNA, W/O.SUBHANNA SHETTY, R/O.KUBETHODU, KIDOOR VILLAGE, P.O.INCHILAMPADY, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2 RAVINDRA SHETTY, S/O. SABBANA SHETTY, R/O.KUBETHODU, KIDOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-11-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO. 28346/2005 : 2 : APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.1679/98/L6(LA.10/740 KIDOOR) DATED 29.06.1999 ISSUED BY THE TAHASILDAR, KASARAGOD. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.D.DIS.11275/99 DATED 17.11.1999 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.11.2002 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.07.2004 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18.06.2005 OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, IN MVARP NO.60/2005. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rv B.P. RAY, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.28346 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction quashing Ext.P5 order No. LR:J2-51838/2004 dated 11.08.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Trivandrum. 2. As per order No. LA 10/74/Kidoor dated 15.06.1978 of the Special Tahsildar (LA), Kumbla, an extent of 0.80 acres of land in RS No. 147/1A of Kidoor Village was assigned in favour of the first respondent. The first respondent assigned this land on Exchange Deed with one Premakumari on 28.08.1980 and Premakumari sold this property to Shri. Ravindra Shetty, the second respondent herein, on 30.03.1995. The second respondent started making false claims on the Kumki Land of the petitioner herein which is the adjacent property and filed a suit as O.S. No. 284 of 1998 before the Munsiff's Court, Kasaragod against the petitioner for prohibitory injunction. The learned Munsiff, after trial, dismissed the suit with cost holding that the plaintiff had miserably failed to establish that he is in possession of the plaint A Schedule property claimed by him. W.P.(C). No.28346/2005 -:2:- Then the petitioner herein could understand that the assigned land includes his Kumki portion of 9 cents also. The petitioner filed an application before the Tahzildar(LA), Kumbla, Kasaragod stating that the assignment to the first respondent is liable to be cancelled since it is in contravention of Rules 8(1)(A) and 8(2) of the Kerla Land Assignment Rules, 1964. By order No.1679/98/L6(LA.10/740 Kidoor) dated 29.06.1999 the Tahsildar, Kasaragod cancelled the assignment made in favour of the first respondent and directed the Village Officer, Kidoor to take possession of the assigned land with proper Mahazar and other records. On appeal preferred by respondents 1 and 2 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kasaragod as Appeal No. AA-24/1999, the appellate authority allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the assigning authority and remanded the case to the Tahsildar, Kasaragod for fresh disposal. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Commissioner of Land Revenue and the case was remanded to the Revenue Divisional Officer for fresh disposal. The Revenue Divisional Officer after hearing the parties and perusing the records dismissed the appeal holding that there is no merit in the claim. Against the said order W.P.(C). No.28346/2005 -:3:- respondents filed a second revision before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Trivandrum. The Commissioner of Land Revenue, Trivandrum as per order dated 11.08.2005 allowed the revision with the following findings: 1. Land was assigned to the Revision Petitioner after following due procedure of law. Notice under Rule 12(1) dt.29.04.78 was published on the notice board before assignment of land. 2. As per the proviso to Rule 8, assignment cannot be cancelled if the income of the transferee occupant was less than Rs.10,000/- per annum and if the transferee occupant had no other land. There is no contrary finding and therefore it is presumed that the assignment is saved by the above proviso. 3. I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings entered by the Commissioner of Land Revenue. It is open to the petitioner to raise all relevant points in a properly constituted suit, if so advised. Without expressing any opinion on the claim of the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed. sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE. rv W.P.(C). No.28346/2005 -:4:-