MANOJ Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Kerala Service Inam lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1981 (for short, 'Service Inam Lands Act') is an enactment introduced to provide for the vesting and enfranchisement of Service Inam lands in the State by abolition of all services attached to such lands. The vesting of all right, title and interest of the land owners in the Service Inam lands on the Government is automatic, by virtue of Sec. 3 of the Act. Under Sec. 3(2), any service or obligation attached to such Inam lands shall stand abolished. However, the Service Inam Lands Act recognises the right of the landholder not of the land owner to seek assignment of the right, title and interest over any Service Inam land, which vest with the Government in terms of Sec. 3 of the Act. Sec. 5(2) enables the landholder to apply to the Settlement Officer for assignment of such right over the Service Inam lands. Sec. 6 mandates the landholder to pay the purchase price to the Government for the assignment of the right, title and interest of the land owner. The Settlement Officer is duty bound in terms of Sec. 7(4) to pass an Order specifying the extent, survey number and other particulars of the land, together with the amount due to the land owner under Sec. 4 and the purchase price payable by the landholder under Sec. 6, for the purpose of assignment of the Service Inam lands to the landholder. Once, the Order of the Settlement Officer becomes final, such Officer has to issue pattas or other documents, evidencing full proprietary rights of the landholders in their holdings. Sec. 11 of Service Inam Lands Act, deems the Orders of the Settlement Officer as a decree of the Civil Court. Ss. 12 and 13 respectively provides an appeal and revision from the Orders of the Settlement Officer, the former before the District Collector and the latter, the Board of Revenue.

(2.) With the above prelude, let us have a look at the attendant facts involved in this Writ Petition. Three Original Applications were filed under Sec. 5 seeking assignment of landholder's right before the District Collector. The first O.A No.76/1982 was filed by one Nani Devaki (the predecessor of respondents 5 to 20 herein); the second, O.A No.640/1982, by one Gopalan Gopi (the 21st respondent herein); and the third, O.A No.861/1982, by one Gopalan Pillai Velappan Nair (the predecessor of respondents 22 to 26). All the three claimants claimed assignment of landholder's right in respect of 49 cents of land in Survey no.1983 of Madathuvilakom Village. After several rounds of litigation - about which detailed reference will be made here below - the said three applicants have allegedly settled the matter and filed a Compromise Petition before the Settlement Officer, accepting which, the impugned Ext.P47 Order was passed, in terms of the compromise. The petitioners herein are persons, who have purchased the rights of Gopalan Gopi, the 21st respondent herein, pendente lite and who had participated in the litigation, which went upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to the petitioners, the compromise entered into without the junction of the petitioners is fraudulent and collusive, besides being illegal, inasmuch as the 21st respondent had no competence to enter into any compromise, after assigning his entire rights to the petitioners. On such premise, the petitioners preferred Ext.P49 revision before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, which, however, was rejected vide Ext.P55. Exts.P47 and P55, along with Ext.P41, are under challenge in this Writ Petition.

(3.) This Court will now refer to the various proceedings/ litigations, which ultimately led to the issuance of the impugned Exts.P47 and P55 Orders.