GOPI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions are involved in these Original Petitions, they were heard jointly and disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) Government assigned 50 cents of land in R.S.93 of Kolari amsom under S.96 of Kerala Land Reforms Act in favour of one Kumbathi Narayanan. As per proceedings of District Collector, Kannur, No.B8-60553/75 dated 24-4-1976. It appears, the said Narayanan assigned the entire land as per assignment deed No.2005/85 dated 19-11-1985 on the file of Mattannur S.R.O. in favour of the petitioner in O.P.No.1544/ 92. Subsequently in 1988, as per registered assignment deed dated 31-8-1988, petitioner in O.P. 1774/92 assigned the 28 1/4 cents of property in favour, of the petitioner in O.P.1544/92. It is alleged that Narayanan sold the property, when he was undergoing treatment for the purpose of raising funds for the treatment and the petitioner in O.P. 1544/92 purchased the property for the purpose of putting up a godown for stocking gas cylinders. It is also submitted that he constructed a godown spending Rs. 1,50,000/-

(3.) While matters stood so, 1st respondent initiated proceedings under R.29(8) of Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules for resumption of the property on the ground that there is violation of R.29(1). Under the said Rules, an assignee of surplus land is prohibited for selling the land for a period of 12 years. On receipt of the notice, petitioners filed statements. It was contended that the show cause notice issued for resumption of land, after 12 years from the date of assignment in favour of Narayanan is illegal and the 1st respondent was not competent to resume the land. In the explanation submitted by the petitioner in O.P.1544/92, he stated that he purchased the land for stocking the gas cylinders and that he did not have financial capacity to purchase another land. It was also pointed out that he is a Scheduled Caste candidate and that factor also may be taken into account. However, the District Collector passed Ext. P3 order, directing resumption of land and petitioners have challenged this in these Original Petitions.