SANTHAMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lands found to be in excess of the ceiling limits, in proceedings under Chap.3 of Act 1/64, vest in the Government, under S.86 and 87 of the Act. S.96 empowers the Land Board (which is distinct from the Taluk Land Boards) to assign such surplus lands on registry to kudikidappukars, landless labourers etc. R.25 to 33 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970 lay down the procedure for making assignments and the conditions under which they could be made. What is important to notice for the purposes of the present case is that those rules speak of assignments being made by the Land Board, and cancellations of the same by the same body, under certain circumstances.

(2.) Four persons obtained assignment of surplus lands in Anikad Village of Kottayam Taluk, under the above statutory scheme. But contrary to the prescription of R.29(1), they sold away those lands to the four petitioners in this Writ Petition. The assignments in question were therefore liable to be cancelled, under R.29(8); and after notice to the parties concerned, the District Collector, Kottayam passed orders of cancellation. It is those orders which are now under challenge.

(3.) The only point raised is that the District Collector cannot exercise power under R.29(8) and cancel an assignment duly made; under the scheme of the Act and the Rules, only the Land Board has got the power to do so, it is contended. And this contention is supported by the decision of Chandrasekhar Menon J. in Bhaskara Kurup v. District Collector ( 1982 KLT 656 ).