Case: Karunakaran Vs. V. Padmini

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Mr. K.P. Gopinathan was a landlord whose lands came under the purview of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The land which is the subject matter of the present proceedings was declared to be surplus land by the landlord. Originally, Respondent No.1 filed an application claiming Kudikidappukars (tenancy) rights on the land. This claim of Respondent No.1 was rejected by the Board constituted under the Act, some time in the year 1988. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 filed applications claiming assignment of the property measuring 8 cents in her favour on the ground that she was a landless agricultural labourer entitled to assignment of such rights in terms of Section 96 of theIt would be pertinent to mention that at the time of verification of the assignment, inspection of the property was done. It was found that from the year 1978 Respondent No.1, along with her family had been residing in a building which covered 6 cents out of the total land measuring 8 cents. The remaining 2 cents of land was under a shed. Therefore, only 6 cents was assigned in favour of Respondent No.1. Thereafter, the original landlord filed O.P. No. 311 of 1992 in the High Court of Kerala claiming that since the land was admittedly covered by a building, the same did not fall under purview of the Act. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition and referred the matter to the Taluk Land Board for reconsideration of the entire case. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 filed Writ Appeal No.898 of 1992 before the High Court of Kerala. During the pendency of the Writ Appeal the original landlord stated that the matter had been settled out of court and he did not want to continue with the original writ petition itself. Therefore, the Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and disposed of the Writ Appeal on 07.09.1993.5. The appellant herein challenged the assignment of the land in favour of Respondent No.1 by filing a petition under Rule 29(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970 before the District Collector, Kozhikode. The main ground raised was that Respondent No.1 had obtained the assignment in her favour by playing fraud and by total misrepresentation of facts and hence was not entitled to the assignment. He, accordingly, sought cancellation of the assignment. The Collector, vide his order dated 22.08.2003 came to the conclusion that Respondent No.1 had played fraud and misrepresented facts and reviewed the Assignment Deed and recalled the earlier order assigning the land in favour of Respondent No.1.6. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 filed a Writ Petition No.28218 of 2003 before the High Court of Kerala, challenging the order of the District Collector and the learned Single Judge held that the Collector had no power to recall the earlier order. He further held that even if there was some misstatement or misrepresentation that did not amount to fraud and hence the order of assignment could not be recalled. Against this order the appellant filed a Writ Appeal No. 1335 of 2013 which has been dismissed and hence the present appeal.

Reasoning:
This provision also envisages that an assignment made under Section 96 is liable to be cancelled if there is contravention of any of the conditions laid down in the Rules.9. The learned Single Judge held that the contraventions pointed out by the appellant/petitioner did not fall within the ambit of Rule 29(8). This finding was upheld by the Division Bench. Section 96 of the Act clearly envisages that assignment can only be made in favour of landless agricultural labourers or small holders and other landlords. In this case, we are only concerned with landless agricultural labourers. Even if we were to ignore the false claim set up by Respondent No.1 that she had obtained the tenancy rights on this land from K.P. Gopinathan in the year 1962, admittedly when she was only 10 years old and at that time K.P. Gopinathan was not the owner of the property as his father K.P. Choyi was still alive, yet we cannot ignore the fact that in the year 1988 Respondent No.1 was having a valid licence to run an aluminium industry and was employing 9 persons. Therefore, Respondent No.1 cannot claim to fall under the category of "landless agricultural labourer". Therefore, she had obtained the assignment order by totallythe facts and had played fraud on the authorities. The law is well settled that fraud vitiates all contracts or agreements. This is a case where fraud is writ large. It is evident that assignment was obtained in total contravention of Section 96 of the Act and, therefore, Rule 29(8) was also applicable. Hence, we are not in agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala.