A. D. JOHNSON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a member of a Scheduled Tribe Community. The Government of Kerala had promulgated a scheme for providing financial assistance to landless members of Scheduled Tribe communities to purchase land in terms of conditions stipulated in Government Orders dated 3.9.2013 and 23.10.2013 (hereinafter referred to as the scheme ). The petitioner identified a plot of land which he intended to purchase in terms of the scheme. His name also finds a place in the list of applicants being considered for grant of benefits under the scheme. It is the case of the petitioner that he had entered into Ext.P2 agreement for the purchase of land identified by him for purchase under the scheme.

(2.) Through Ext.P4, the petitioner was called upon to explain as to why his application for benefits under the scheme should not be rejected as he was found to have purposefully misled the authorities in as much as he was not a landless person to whom alone the scheme could be extended. It was alleged that he had land in a place called 'Maniyarankudy' in Idukki Village. It was also alleged that the petitioner had earlier availed financial benefit from the Government for putting up a house in the land at 'Maniyarankudy'. Ext.P6 report dated 7.8.2014 of the Village Officer, Idukki Village showed that the petitioner had in possession 1.5 acres of land, for which he had no 'pattayam' and which land he had sold about two years prior to the date of Ext.P.6.

(3.) Through Ext.P7, the petitioner had represented to the District Collector, Idukki District that the land at 'Maniyarankudy' belongs to his brother, who had permitted him to put up a residence therein and that he had sold the land to meet the expenses of the marriage of his daughter. Ext.P8 certificate issued by the Village Officer, Idukki, on 14.3.2003 states that the petitioner has no land at 'Maniyarankudy' in Idukki Village. To the same effect is Ext.P8(a) certificate issued by the Tribal Extension Officer, Idukki. Through Ext.P11 communication issued by the District Collector, Idukki on 2.12.2014, the petitioner was informed that he was not eligible to purchase land under the scheme. Ext.P11 also enclosed the report of the Project Officer of the Integrated Tribal Development Project, Idukki, dated 28.8.2014, which was the basis for the finding that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of the scheme. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P11 and for a direction to the respondents to consider him as eligible for the benefit of the scheme.