MATHEW JOHN Vs. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant obtained an assignment under Rule 6 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. This provision is distinct from Rule 7. Rule 6 contemplates assignments made for the beneficial enjoyment of an adjoining registered holding. "Beneficial enjoyment," as defined in Rule 2 (cd), includes purposes such as providing approach roads to the assignee's registered holdings and protecting water courses, standing crops, and buildings. Such assignments are made by the Revenue Divisional Officer, upon payment of the market value by the applicant. Rule 7, on the other hand, rests on welfare considerations, being intended to benefit socially and economically marginalised groups. Two categories of persons are entitled to assignment under this Rule. The first category consists of persons who have encroached upon government land, whose occupation is considered non-objectionable, provided the encroachment occurred prior to 1/8/1971. Even in this category, the applicants must satisfy certain personal qualifications, such as low income or being landless members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes. The second category, dealt with in Rule 7(2), relates to persons seeking assignment of unoccupied government land. They, too, must establish personal qualifications, including income ceilings and limited land ownership, as prescribed in the Rule.

(2.) There is no specific provision under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, regarding the form of assignment to be made under Rule 6. The same format is followed for both, and they appear to be identical.

(3.) Under Rule 8, the conditions of assignment on the registry are mentioned. It is appropriate to refer to Rule 8 in this context. We must also note the anomaly of clause 1(A) being repeated twice in Rule 8. It is appropriate to refer to Rule 8 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, prescribing the conditions of assignment on registry as follows: