Karunakaran vs V. Padmini

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned senior government pleader and learned senior counsel for the first respondent.

This writ appeal is against the judgment of the learned single Judge interfering with an order of the District Collector vacating an assignment made on an application u/s 96 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, for short "Act", read with the provisions contained in Chapter IV of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970, hereinafter ''Rules'' for short.

One K.P. Gopinathan filed a return before the jurisdictional Taluk Land Board, for short, "TLB". Those proceedings became final. V. Padmini, who moved the learned single Judge, had claimed kudikidappu rights during the course of the TLB proceedings. That was repelled. After the conclusion of the ceiling proceedings, she moved the District Collector on the premise that she is a landless agricultural labourer, and, that she was, in fact, a kudiyirippukari, and therefore, had obtained occupational status of a landless labourer. The Collector granted order in her favour on inbuilt conditions in terms of Rule 29 of the Rules.

Thereafter, Karunakaran, the appellant, applied to the Collector stating that the assignment granted to Padmini was obtained fraudulently, misrepresenting facts, and the same is, therefore, liable to be revoked. The Collector, in his wisdom, took the view that there was a clause in the assignment granted, to the effect that if it is found that the assignment is obtained by fraudulent means, the same would be withdrawn. On that basis, the Collector revoked the assignment granted to Padmini.

The power to revoke is a statutory power regulated by Rule 29(8) of the Rules, which provides that the assignment of land u/s 96 of the Act shall be liable to be cancelled for the contravention of any of the conditions or restrictions laid down in that Rule, thereby meaning the conditions in terms of Rule 29 of the Rules.

If there is a condition in the original grant that it is liable to be set aside if it is seen that it was obtained fraudulently, that is not a statement in terms of Rule 29 of the Rules but is only the reiteration of the basic jurisprudential doctrine that the result of a fraud can be taken off by the grantee, at any point of time. But, that is not an off-the-cuff process de hors the cardinal constitutional and legal prescriptions of jurisprudential value, acceptance and application.

The decision of the Collector revoking the assignment was challenged by Padmini before the learned single Judge. Adjudicating on the factual matters the learned single Judge has concluded that there was no ground of established fraud, much less any ground to invoke the power under Rule 29(8) of the Rules.

We also have to recall that the District Collector has not exercised the power on having noted any fraudulent exercise in the original grant, but only acted on an application by the appellant, Karunakaran. He also wanted to project himself as a rival, trying to obtain an assignment as a landless agricultural labourer. We see that within the format of Rule 29(8), there was no such authority with the Collector to consider rival claims.

The reasons stated by the learned single Judge to set aside the order of the District Collector recalling the assignment made, hence, stand.

In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed. We dissuade ourselves from imposing any order of costs in favour of the private respondent.