IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 18454 of 2003(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHIJI. C. SENAN, S/O. CHANDRA SENAN, AGED 31 YEARS, SARALA SADANAM, VALIAPARAMBU P.O., KARITHIKAPPALLY-690 566. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, CHENGANNUR. 3. TAHASILDAR, KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. PADMALAYAN, MUKKEL VEEDU, KIZHAKKEKARA VADAKKU VALIYAPARAMBU P.O., KARTHIKAPALLY-690 566. ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R4 SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1TO3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NO.4254/2003 IN W.P.(C) NO.18454/2003 DISMISSED: 13.8.2009 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.30.8.1983. P2: TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.3333 DT.15.9.1984. P3: TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DT.24.1.1992. P4: TRUE COPIES OF EXPLANATIONS DT.20.1.1990, 5.5.90 AND 19.5.90 SUBMITTED BEFORE R2 BY THE PETITIONER. P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.25.8.1993 ISSUED BY R2. P6: TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION DT.15.10.1993 SUBMITTED BEFORE R1. P6a: TRUE COPY OF PETITION DT.1.1.2003 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR REVENUE. P7: TRUE COPY OF G.O. DT.28.3.2003 ISSUED BY R1. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R3(a): COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF ASST. COLLECTOR, CHENGANNUR. R3(b): COPY OF G.O. DT.10.3.2003. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.18454 of 2003 .................................................................... Dated this the 13th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT The W.P. is filed challenging Ext.P5 order of the RDO cancelling assignment of property comprising of 37.651 cents of land on an appeal filed by the 4th respondent who is in physical possession of 20 cents out of the 37.651 cents. Petitioner is the son of a retired Revenue official, who while working as Financial Officer got the land assigned in favour of his servant by name Govindan in the year 1983 and shortly after that, the said Govindan was made to transfer the assigned land to the petitioner who was only 12 years of age at that time. When petitioner tried to take over possession of the property, the 4th respondent who was in possession of 20 cents of land objected and he filed appeal against assignment. On enquiry, RDO found that assignment is a manipulation by petitioner's father who was holding influential position in the Revenue Department at that time. He, therefore, cancelled the assignment which was confirmed by the Government in Ext.P7. 2. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the 4th respondent. The facts being the above which stand proved beyond any 2 doubt, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. Even though counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is only purchaser of the property and assignment cannot be interfered with after delay of several years, I do not think delay will forfeit the authority of the RDO to cancel the assignment because it is a fraudulent transaction. In the first place, the petitioner has no case that he is in physical possession of the entire land purchased by him from the assignee namely, Mr.Govindan. On the other hand, on enquiry it was found that 4th respondent was in possession of atleast 20 cents of land. In the circumstances, I find no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner and therefore, W.P. is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms