KURIPPAN DEVAKI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Original Petition, the petitioner challenges Exts. P2 and P4 orders.

(2.) An extent of 0.32 acre of land in R.S. No. 151/2 of Koodali amsom Pattannur desom was assigned to the petitioner on 31-1-1977 pursuant to order No. B8.67538/76 passed by the District Collector, Kannur under S.96 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Admittedly the petitioner assigned the land to the 3rd respondent and his wife as per document No. 2079/86 of the Irikur Sub Registry. According to the petitioner she made this assignment believing that she could purchase another strip of land near to her residence, so that she could cultivate the land more effectively and profitably. While matters stood so, she received Ext. PI show cause notice stating that she has sold the entire land assigned to her in violation of the provisions contained in sub rule (1) of R.29 of Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules and there fore the assignment to the petitioner is liable to be cancelled and the land is liable to resumed to the Government. The petitioner filed objection but the 2nd respondent, by Ext. P2, cancelled the assignment. Thereafter the petitioner filed a representation before the Minister for Revenue, but that was rejected by Ext. P4. It is not disputed that the land was sold to the 3rd respondent and his wife before the expiry of 12 years. R.29(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules states that land assigned under S.2 shall not, subject to the provisions of sub rule (2) to (5), be alienable for a period of 12 years from the date of , assignment or for the period during which the charge created under sub-section (3) of S.97 subsists, whichever is later. The assignment in favour of the 3rd respondent is within the period of prohibition. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that before the order cancelling the assignment was passed she got reconveyance of land and in the circumstances, the order cancelling the assignment is void.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the lst respondent. It is stated in the counter affidavit that during the course of hearing in the matter the original assignee, Karuppan Devaki produced the document No. 692/89, but on enquiry as to physical possession, it was revealed that the petitioner is not in possession and Kunhiraman (3rd respondent) and his wife, the transferees from the petitioner, are in possession. The counsel for petitioner vehemently challenged this statement. Counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that he has re-transferred the land and the petitioner is in possession. But lam unable to uphold this contention as this is a disputed question of fact. This apart, I do not think that any reconveyance of the land will save the original assignee from the consequence provided in sub rule (8) of R.29 of the Ceiling Rules. ' Under the said sub rule any assignment under S.96 shall be liable to be cancelled for contravention of any of the conditions or restrictions laid down in this rule and the land assigned shall be liable to be resumed by oral the instance of the authority which assigned V.13 land as if such land is a land belonging to Government and in the unauthorised occupation of the person then in possession or occupation. In the circumstance, there is no substance in the contention that in view of the reconveyance the consequence laid down in sub rule (S) of R.29 will not follow. It is lastly contended by the learned Counsel for petitioner that though the petitioner filed a representation before the Government and a stay was obtained, that representation was disposed of without giving personal hearing to him I do not think that in disposing of the representation which is not statutory in nature, it is necessary to give a hearing before the representation k disposed of, especially is the absence of a specific request from the petitioner for providing such opportunity In the circumstances, there is no substance in that contention also.