IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20724 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.K.PARVATHY, W/O.SUKUMARAN, RESIDING AT MAINDANPARA, KUMBADAJE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KASARAGOD. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K. RAMESH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C. NO. 20724/2008. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT. 13-1-2004. EXT.P2 JUDGMENT IN W.P.C. NO. 4895/2006. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF REPORT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF SKETCH. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT. EXT.P6 RECEIPT DT. 14-5-2007. EXT.P7 ASSIGNMENT ORDER DT. 16-3-2007. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF PATTA. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 20724 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 3rd day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to have been in occupation of 4 acres of land prior to 1970. The petitioner claims that in accordance with the Kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules, the petitioner was entitled to assignment of the entire 4 acres. The petitioner filed an application for assignment of that land. After a long time, ultimately, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Ext. P2 judgment, the petitioner was assigned 1 acre of land by Exts.P7 and P8. According to the petitioner, as per the report of the Village Officer, the petitioner was in occupation of 1.90 acres of land and was occupying the same from 1968. The petitioner also submits that the encroachment was not considered objectionable and the only income of the family is below Rs. 18,000/-. But, the assigning authority demanded land value at market rate for the assigned land, which, according to the petitioner, is against the provisions of Rule 7 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. According to him, for assignment under Rule 7, the respondents cannot insist on payment of market value of the property. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to assign the remaining extent of land held by the petitioner, in terms of Rules 5 & 7 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, within a time frame; ii) To issue a direction to the respondents to refund the money collected by the respondents being the land value for the land assigned under Exts.P4 & P5, declaring that the petitioner is not liable to pay land value for the assignment of land.” 2. Kerala is a small State where land is very dear. Claimants for assignment are plenty. That being so, I am of opinion thaw the practice of assigning large extent of land to single individual simply W.P.C. No. 20724/2008 -: 2 :- because he has encroached the land will be unjust to the other thousands of landless people in the State. Government is finding it very difficult to assign land even to the tribals as promised by them despite specific directions issued by this Court in that regard. In the above circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim the luxury of having such large extent of land assigned in her favour. Sensing the mood of the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner confines the prayer of the petitioner for the second prayer. 3. In the above circumstances, that issue was considered in detail. For assignment under Rule 7, prima facie, there is no provision for payment of market value. That being so, I am of opinion that that issue is liable to be reconsidered by the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, his writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders regarding the land value payable by the petitioner strictly in accordance with the provisions under which the petitioner has been favoured with assignment as per Exts.P7 and P8. The same shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. If the District Collector finds that as per Rules, the petitioner was not liable to pay market value, the excess payment, if any, made by the petitioner shall be refunded to her within another month. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/