RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the legal heirs of the late Sreedharan and Nalinikutty. Ext.P1 is the legal heirship certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Kollam. Late Sreedharan was a freedom fighter. As per Ext.P2 order dtd. 18/11/1975, issued under Rule 21 of the Arable Forest Land Assignment Rules,1970 (hereinafter referred to as the '1970 Rules'), sanction was accorded for the assignment of 1 Acre of Arable Forest Land in Airanalloor Reserve of Quilon District to Late Sreedharan. By Ext.P3, the 6th respondent assigned 40 Ares of Arable Forest Land in Sy.No.822/948A,B to Late Sreedharan and he effected mutation of the property in Thandaper No.12502. Ext.P4 is the receipt for payment of tax in 1985, issued by the Village officer. It is submitted the properties were not identified and located by the Department, in spite of the order of assignment and payment of tax. Late Sreedharan filed O.P.No.4281/1986 before this Court, which was disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider the representation to put him in possession. On 25/9/1991, the 4th respondent directed the 6 th respondent to survey land, locate the property and hand over possession. The 6th respondent failed to comply with the direction. Ext.P5 dtd. 19/3/1992 is a subsequent communication issued by the 4th respondent to 6th respondent directing to take appropriate action. The 6th respondent did not take any initiative on the letter. Late Sreedharan became sick and was bedridden for several years and later died on 12/7/1996. Late Sreedharan 's widow Smt.Nalinikutty submitted several representations, but the 6 th respondent did not take any steps. A representation was filed before the Minister for Revenue, which was forwarded to the 4th respondent as per communication No.50/12/M(Rev.C) on 30/4/2012. The initial stand of the respondents was that the assigned property was encroached upon by landless people and the Government had revoked the assignment in favor of the petitioners ' father and assigned the lands to the encroachers. Ext.P6 communication sent by the 4th respondent to Smt.Nalinikutty is to that effect.

(2.) Smt.Nalinikutty filed W.P.(C)No.21844/2012 challenging Ext.P6. The respondents filed counter affidavits. It was submitted that the earlier stand taken by the respondents in Ext.P6 was not correct and that the assignment in favour of Late Sreedharan was still in force and had not been cancelled. This Court disposed of the writ petition by Ext.P8 judgment, recording its view that the petitioner shall be assigned suitable alternative land elsewhere and directing the District Collector to take a decision in the matter within three months and forward the recommendation to the Secretary to Government. This Court also directed the Secretary to Government to take a decision after adverting to the recommendation of the District Collector within a further period of 3 months. The judgment is dtd. 17/2/2016. Smt.Nalinikutty died on 10/10/2016. The 4th respondent on 21/10/2017 sent Ext.P9 recommendation to the 2nd respondent, pointing out that 1.200 Hectares of land in Re-Sy.No.242/1 in Block No.28 of Edamulakkal Village is available for the purpose of assignment to the petitioners. It was recommended that land equivalent to the market value of the land originally assigned to the petitioners ' father, can be assigned to the petitioners. However, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P10 order assigning 15 cents of land to the 4th petitioner who alone is stated to be landless among the petitioners. The writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P6 and P10.

(3.) The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is contended that since the assignee did not occupy the land and cultivate it, nearby landless families encroached into the land and started cultivation in the late seventies. It is stated that when steps were taken to re-assign the land to occupants, the petitioners ' father had filed O.P.No.4281/1986 before this Court. It is admitted that the original assignment was not cancelled and that there was no re-assignment. It is however stated that eviction of the occupants of the said lands was not possible. Ext.P10 is stated to be the order issued in compliance with the directions in Ext.P8 judgment. It is contended that as per the Kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules, the landless people can be given a maximum extent of 15 cents of land in Panchayat area and that land assignment on patta will be only to landless. It is submitted that the request for 1 Acre of land cannot be accepted in view of the Rules. The counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent is also in the same line.