IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 30504 of 2011(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- DEVASSYKUTTY, S/O.PECHI, AGED 52 YEARS, KAITHAVELI, NORTH CHALLANAM, KOCHI - 682 008. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN SMT.K.B.REKHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD - 682 024. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHALLANAM VILLAGE OFFICE - 682 008. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.30504/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P-1 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR DEPOSITING PURCHASE PRICE WITH RESPECT TO 10 CENTS OF NILAM IN SURVEY NO.369/2 OF CHELLANAM VILLAGE DATED 11.12.1992. EXT.P-2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18.06.1997 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P-3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 28.6.2004 IN O.P.NO.13918/199 EXT.P-4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.6.2006 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P-5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 29.5.2007 IN WPC NO.13165/2007 EXT.P-6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.9.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P-7 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 31.3.2006 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 30504 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 16th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was assigned 10 cents of land as per Ext.P1 order issued under Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970. Subsequently, Ext.P2 order was issued cancelling Ext.P1 order of assignment. A reading of Ext.P2 shows that subsequent to the order of assignment, it was found that the assignment was irregular for the reason that many of the assignees had properties of their own. The matter was reconsidered pursuant to the directions of this Court in Ext.P3 judgment. Accordingly, Ext.P4 order was issued where Ext.P2 order was upheld. Again the petitioner challenged Ext.P4 before this Court, but he was relegated to pursue revisional remedy. Accordingly, revision was filed, which is rejected by Ext.P6 order of the Land Revenue Commissioner. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition is filed. 2. Exts.P2, P4 and P6 orders referred to above show that the ground of cancellation of assignment is that the petitioner had properties of his own, and therefore, the assignment was held irregular. When the writ petition was heard, learned counsel WPC No. 30504/11 :2 : contended that though the petitioner had property of his own, the land was assigned by Ext.P2 taking note of the fact that he was thrown out of employment on account of the vesting of the land. 3. However, assignment of land under Rule 30 of the Rules is subject to the provisions of Section 96 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The priority in which the land is to be assigned is indicated in the said Section and in so far as agricultural labourers, in which category the petitioner claims assignment are concerned, assignment is permissible only to landless agricultural labourers. Admittedly, petitioner had land of his own, and therefore, so long as he has land of his own, he is not a landless agricultural labourer and is ineligible for assignment. The fact that he was thrown out of employment is no reason for assignment as contended by the petitioner, as the Act does not recognise such assignment. Therefore, in view of the admitted factual position that the petitioner has landed property of his own, I do not find anything irregular in the impugned proceedings. Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge