BHASKARA KURUP Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Tahsildar, Karunagappally had taken possession of an extent of 13 cents of land comprised in Sy. No. 9567 of Thodiyoor Village as excess land belonging to one Unnikrishna Pillai as ordered by the Taluk Land Board. This land was assigned as per the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules to one Chandrasekharan Nair of Kidangoor Veedu. According to the petitioner, the land that was resumed from Unnikrishna Pillai belonged to the tarwad of Unnikrishna Pillai and Petitioner. That was the seat of the tarwad deity and a 'Sarpakavu'. Though in the partition the land had been assigned to Unnikrishna Pillai, it had been the place of worship of the members of the tarwad.

(2.) The surrender and assignment of the land in accordance with the Kerala Land Reforms Act roused the sentiments of the members of the tarwad and apprehension prevailed among them that tampering with the 'Sarpakavu' and family deity might affect adversely the members of the tarwad. Therefore the petitioner prevailed upon the assignee, Chandrasekharan Nair, to sell this piece of land so that he could preserve the 'Sarpakavu' and family deity. Chandrasekharan Nair readily agreed to sell the land, as the land was unfit for residential purposes. On 31-5-1979 Chandrasekharan Nair sold the land to the petitioner and he purchased on the same day another land with the consideration obtained by the sale of the property assigned to him. Petitioner and the members of the tarwad continued to use the land as a place of worship. He has approached this court as he was made aware of an order passed by the District Collector, Quilon-Ist respondent herein-cancelling the assignment in favour of Chandrasekharan Nair on the ground that the assigned land has been alienated in contravention of the Rules. Ext. P1 is a copy of the order which is challenged in this writ petition It would appear from Ext. P1 that though Chandrasekharan Nair was given a show cause notice before cancellation, there was no notice to the petitioner, subsequent assignee of Chandrasekharan Nair, before the impugned order was passed.

(3.) The challenge to Ext. P1 is on two grounds. The Collector has no jurisdiction to cancel the assignment as the Land Reforms Act and the Rules do not empower him to do so. Therefore Ext. P1 is void Secondly, no notice has been given to the petitioner as the person to whom the property has been alienated and as one actually in possession as is required by R.29(8) of the Land Reforms (ceiling) Rules. Ext. P1 is violative of this mandatory rule and the principles of natural justice. The petitioner filed an application to review the order. That was summarily rejected. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents namely the District Collector and the Tahsildar the order is sought to be sustained as one being within the power of the Collector.