STATE OF KERALA Vs. K K MATHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in W.P.(C) No. 23472 of 2010 are the appellants. The respondents herein filed the writ petition seeking to challenge Exts.P6 and P6(a) orders issued by the third appellant, cancelling the assignment of land mentioned therein, which are covered by Exts.P2 and P2(a) and which were acquired by the respondents by Exts.P3 and P3(a) sale deeds. By the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge set aside Exts.P6 and P6(a) and disposed of the writ petition clarifying that the findings in the judgment would not affect the rights of the parties to move for arbitration in terms of Clause 14 of Ext.P2 Order of Assignment of land and in the light of the judgment of this Court in Joemon Joseph v. Tahsildar, 2011 2 KerLT 1007. It is aggrieved by this judgment, this appeal is filed.

(2.) On facts it is only relevant to state that by Ext.P2 order of assignment and Ext.P2(a) patta, 3.50 acres of land was assigned to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, Sri. V.C. Poulose under the Rules of the Assignment of Government Lands for Rubber Plantation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') framed by the Government of Kerala in exercise of its powers under Section 7 of the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960. Though this assignment was ordered way back in 1970, from the transferee of the original assignee, the property was acquired by the respondents as per Ext.P3 and Ext.P3(a) sale deeds, which were executed on 28.4.1999 and 22.5.1996 respectively.

(3.) While the respondents were in possession and enjoyment in the land in question, Ext.R3(a) judgment was rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 9605/2008. In that judgment, this Court considered cases where in a land that was assigned under the Rules, quarrying operations were undertaken. In the judgment this Court held that such activity was in violation of the conditions of the grant attracting cancellation of the very grant itself. This Court further directed the authorities to initiate action for cancellation of assignment in the case of violation of all similar grants and also to recover of the value of the minerals that were extracted and appropriated by the assignees and their successors. The judgment of the learned single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1908/2009 except to the extent of the direction requiring recovery of the value of the minerals extracted. The judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed.