IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 OP.No. 35405 of 2001(M) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A. NARAYANAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. APPAKUNHI, RESIDING AT ARUNGULI, PADY VILLAGE, VIA. CHENGALA, KASARAGOD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH SMT.C.V.BINDU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER (LAND REVENUE), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KASARAGOD. 4. A. HALOJI, S/O. DURGOJI, RESIDING AT ANDRUGULI, PADY VILLAGE, AND POST, KASARAGOD DIST. 5. BELLACHI, W/O. KANNAN, RESIDING AT KUTTANJANAM, MULIYAR VILLAGE AND POST, KANGANGAD DIST. ADV. SRI.V.L.SHENOY FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MATHEW VADAKKEL FOR R1-R3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP 57705 OF 2001 IN OP 35405 OF 2001 DISMISSED 29.7.2009 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT DATED 11.2.1986 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSIGNEE UNDER RULE 9(2) OF THE RULES. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN REVISION PETITION DATED 18.6.1993 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.8.99 BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2001 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.9.90 OF MUNISFF'S COURT, KASARAGOD. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE AGAINST THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 30.3.1991 IN A.S. NO. 86 OF 1990 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- O. P. NO. 35405 OF 2001 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 order which is the one issued by the RDO in an appeal remanded to him by the Board of Revenue in revision proceedings. The facts leading to the case are the following. The fifth respondent, a lady, made an application for assignment of 98 cents of land. The land was assigned to her on 11.2.1976. It is stated to be based on some committee's recommendation. The assignee, namely, fifth respondent sold the land to the petitioner by registered sale deed on 25.11.1977. The fourth respondent in this WPC challenged the assignment and subsequent sale in an appeal before the RDO. Even though appeal was dismissed by the RDO, the Board of Revenue in revision set aside the order and remanded the matter to the RDO for fresh disposal. Pursuant to the said order, Ext.P4 order was issued by the RDO holding that the assignment stands in favour of the fifth respondent is cancelled for violation of Rule 8(1A) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. There is no dispute in factual position that the 2 property was sold by the fifth respondent just over a year after the assignment that too within three years which is a violation of Rule 8 (1A) of the Rules. Rule 8(5) stipulates that assignment shall be cancelled if there is violation in terms of Rule 8(1A). There is no appearance for the fifth respondent, who is a lady, in whose favour land was assigned. I doubt whether the assignment was made to a genuine person. In any case she was not in need or eligible for assignment in which case she would not have sold the property. Government land is assigned to landless poor and normally it is a precious possession for the assignees and for their generations to come. Obviously assignment in this case is a bogus one to an ineligible person and the RDO rightly cancelled it. Strangely fourth respondent is not appearing in this Court. In any case Ext.P4 order issued by the RDO is confirmed. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is a landless person and is also eligible for assignment of land under that category. Even though petitioner adopted a dubious method to knock- off the government land through a bogus assignment and a later purchase by him, the same should not disqualify the petitioner from 3 applying for assignment if he is otherwise eligible. 3. Since transferor's title is gone, then sale deed in favour of the petitioner will stand cancelled. Consequently Tahsildar will restore the land to the Government possession and consider the application for assignment by anyone, including the petitioner. O.P. is disposed of subject to the above observation. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 4