IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19532 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. VEERAN, S/O.HYDRUMAN, KARIKKAKKAVU PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, THONNURKARA PO, CHELAKKARA (VIA,) THRISSUR DIST. 2. RAJAN S/O.PAZHANIMALA, PUTHENVEETTIL, VELLADI, ELNADU VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK. 3. KAMALAM, W/O.PREMKUMAR, CHEPPAYIL HOUSE, PAZHAYANNUR PO, VELLARKULAM, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN (1) SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKETHARA THRISSUR DIST. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. BY GP SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).19532/2009 ....................... Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT 1st petitioner applied for assignment of land in terms of Section 96 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. One Acre of land lying in Survey No.38 of Talappilly Taluk, Vadakkethara Village, was offered to be assigned by the 4th respondent, as evidenced by Ext.P1. Purchase price was fixed at Rs.500/- in lump or in 16 equal monthly instalments. The property covered by Ext.P1 was in the possession of other persons. Therefore, there was a fresh offer of assignment as evidenced by Ext.P2 for an equal extent of land. Petitioner came into possession of the land covered by Ext.P2, reportedly in the year 1976. 1st petitioner claims that he has paid 1st instalment for the land in the year 1976. 2. In the meanwhile, 1st petitioner entered into an agreement for sale of the property in favour of the 2nd petitioner. Thereafter, the matter reached the Civil Court vide O.S.No.260/1998 instituted by the 2nd petitioner for W.P.(C).19532/09 2 specific performance. Ext.P3 judgment and decree was passed by the Munsiff Court and according to the 1st petitioner, pursuant to the execution of the sale deed in enforcement of the decree, possession of the property was transferred from the 1st petitioner to petitioners 2 and 3. 3. In the meanwhile, since the 1st petitioner himself has not derived title to the property he proceeded with his request for a confirmation of the assignment. This was directed to be considered by this Court vide Ext.P7 judgment. Government proceeded to consider the same. But by Ext.P8 order, Government not only declined confirmation of the assignment but also directed resumption of the land on the ground that the 1st petitioner had violated the conditions by which excess land could be assigned under the provisions of Section 96 of the Act. Ext.P8 is under challenge in the writ petition. 4. I heard Mr.Madhu Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Narayanan, learned senior Government Pleader. W.P.(C).19532/09 3 5. The direction issued by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment was to the Government to consider the 1st petitioner's request for a confirmation of the assignment. That could have been declined. But a decision to resume the land after cancellation of the offer made as early as in the year 1976, should have been preceded by a specific notice containing a proposal to do so, followed by a hearing of the affected parties, and then followed by an order in terms of the provisions of the Act. That has not been done in the present case. 6. Accordingly, Ext.P8 is set aside. Government is directed to pass fresh orders as already directed in Ext.P7 judgment. But if the Government proposes to resume the land, then reasons for such resumption and reasons for the proposal, should be communicated by a specific show cause notice addressed to the 1st petitioner and he should also be given an opportunity to defend the proposal and an enquiry shall be conducted. Final orders in this regard shall be passed within four months W.P.(C).19532/09 4 from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 1st petitioner will be entitled to defend the proposal by taking up all contentions permissible in law. Status quo as on date shall be maintained till fresh orders are passed by the Government. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs