DISTRICT COLLECTOR Vs. K.BHASKARA KURUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the District Collector,Quilon and another challenging the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in OP No.4433 of 1981.The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this case may briefly be stated as follows:The Collector assigned the land in favour of Chandrasekharan Nair under S.96 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.The said assignment or alienation was subject to the condition prescribed by R.29(1)of the Land Reforms(Ceiling)Rules that such land shall be heritable but shall not,subject to the provisions of sub -rules(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 assignee however chose to transfer the property in favour of the respondent within a short period the assignee got the land from the Collector.When that fact came to the notice of the Collector,Quilon he issued a show cause notice to the assignee and after considering the cause shown by him made an order as per Ext.P1 on 24th May 1981 cancelling the assignment.The said decision was challenged by the respondent in OP No.4433 of 1981.The learned Single Judge has allowed the Original Petition and quashed Ext.P1.Hence this appeal.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge has allowed the Original Petition firstly on the ground that the District Collector who cancelled the assignment did not have the power to do so and secondly on the ground that the assignee was not given an opportunity of being heard by the Collector.

(3.) THE next question for consideration is as to whether the respondent was required to be given an opportunity of showing cause in the matter before the Collector exercised the power to cancel the assignment.Sub -rule(8)to R.29 expressly provides that no such cancellation can be made without giving the party affected thereby a reasonable opportunity of being heard.The learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the assignment having been made in favour of Chandrasekharan Nair,it was enough if he was given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.It is not disputed that Chandrasekharan Nair was given such an opportunity and that the respondent was not given any such opportunity.It appears to us that R.29(8)incorporates the well recognised principles of natural justice viz .,that no person shall be deprived of the right or privilege that he enjoys without giving him an opportunity of having his say in the matter.The expression used in sub -rule(8)of R.29 is without giving the party affected thereby a reasonable opportunity of being heard ;.The question for consideration therefore is as to who can be regarded as a party affected by the decision to cancel the assignment.Sri Chandrasekharan Nair,after having alienated the land in favour of the respondent and having put the respondent in possession had no more any subsisting interest in the land on the date on which the Collector issued notice to him.Hence giving an opportunity of showing cause to Chandrasekharan Nair would amount to an empty formality as he is not likely to be interested in showing cause in the matter at all,as he has already parted with the land.The person who would actually be affected by the action to be taken by the Collector is the respondent himself as he has acquired the property by purchasing the same and obtaining possession of the property.Any order cancelling the assignment is therefore bound to affect the respondent 's interest directly.Hence it is not possible to take the view that the respondent cannot be regarded as a party that is likely to be affected by the decision.Hence we have no hesitation in taking the view that the respondent was entitled to have an opportunity of being heard in the matter.