Kerala High Court
Ammini vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2025
WP(C)NO.25576/2014 1
2025:KER:108
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 16TH POUSHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 25576 OF 2014
PETITIONER:
AMMINI
W/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR, THEKKANAT HOUSE,
THIRUMENI P.O., CHERUPUZHA (VIA),
KANNUR DIST, PIN-670511
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.SASINDRAN
SRI.V.VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670001
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KASARAGOD DIST, PIN-671121
4 THE TAHSILDAR
HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671121
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
MALOTH, VALLIKADAVU P O,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671533
BY ADV.SRI.BINOY DAVIS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C)NO.25576/2014 2
2025:KER:108
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2025 The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash Ext.P9 order issued by the District Collector, Kasaragod, cancelling the assignment of one acre of land to her for the reason that she had failed to take possession of the property. The following reliefs have been sought in the Writ Petition :
"(i) Quash Ext.P9 by issuing writ of certiorari any other writ, order or direction ;
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus any other writ, order or direction commanding the 3rd respondent to demarcate the boundaries of the property and to put the petitioner in possession of the property assigned as per Ext.P2 ;
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus any other writ, order or direction commanding the 4th respondent to make necessary changes in the revenue records with regard to the property assigned to the petitioner and to measure and demarcate the property assigned to the petitioner as per Ext.P2 ;WP(C)NO.25576/2014 3
2025:KER:108
(iv) declare that, the 3rd respondent has no right to cancel the Ext.P2 deed of assignment on the ground of not taking possession of the assigned property when the 3rd respondent failed to demarcate the property and to put the petitioner in possession of the assigned property ;
(v) issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case." Brief facts:
2. The petitioner had applied for assignment of land and she was found eligible for such assignment. Consequently in the year 1977, she was issued with an offer of assignment dated 18.06.1977 (Ext.P1). The land offered had an extent of one acre and was comprised in Re.Sy.No.193 of Maloth Village, which was then part of Kannur District and later was added to Kasaragod District. She was called upon to pay the purchase price of Rs.200/- in installments.
Petitioner accepted the offer and paid the first installment on 18.07.1977. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P2 deed of assignment dated 11.08.1978 was executed wherein the petitioner is shown as the assignee. She was directed to pay the balance amount of the purchase price of Rs.187.50 within 15 years of execution of the deed. WP(C)NO.25576/2014 4
2025:KER:108 She contends that she had paid the entire purchase price of Rs.200/- though she is not in possession of the receipt evidencing the same. After the issuance of Ext.P2 deed, the petitioner awaited demarcation of the property assigned to her, so as to enable her to take effective possession thereof. Years passed by and around three decades later in 2011, petitioner preferred an application to the 3 rd respondent District Collector seeking his intervention in ensuring demarcation of the property. The 3rd respondent issued Ext.P3 stating that her complaint has been forwarded to the 4 th respondent. However, no steps for demarcation were carried out and the efforts taken by the petitioner to prod the respondents to demarcate the property as revealed from Exts.P4, P5 and P6 went in vain. While so, the petitioner applied for copies of the payments made by her towards the purchase price and along with the same, she received a copy of the report submitted by the 5th respondent to the 4th respondent. From the said report petitioner came to know that a special survey had been conducted by the revenue officials and it was found therein that the petitioner had not made any improvements in the land assigned and had also failed to take possession of the said property. WP(C)NO.25576/2014 5
2025:KER:108 Hence they had recommended cancelling assignment of the property made to her. Petitioner hence preferred W.P.(C) No.22401 of 2013 before this Court which was disposed vide Ext.P8 judgment inter alia directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on representation preferred by the petitioner. Subsequent to the said judgment, petitioner was heard by the 3 rd respondent and since no orders were passed, she preferred a Contempt of Court Case. Thereafter Ext.P9 order dated 14.08.2014 was rendered by the 3 rd respondent inter alia stating that the assignment made to the petitioner has been cancelled for violating Rule 29 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling), Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the KLR (Ceiling) Rules"). The reason for such cancellation stated is that though the property was assigned to her as early as 1976, she had not taken possession of the same and had thus violated the conditions of the assignment of land leading to cancellation. The petitioner challenges such cancellation in this W.P.(C) and seeks consequential reliefs.
3. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that Ext.P9 has been rendered in accordance with law and WP(C)NO.25576/2014 6 2025:KER:108 challenge against the same is unsustainable.
4. Heard Sri.M.Sasindran, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri.Binoy Davis, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
5. Contentions of the petitioner in brief:
● Ext.P9 order is illegal and arbitrary. It was rendered in haste to suppress failure of the respondents to demarcate the boundaries of the property which was their mandated duty. ● The petitioner was not able to take possession of the property assigned to her since boundaries of the property had not been demarcated in Ext.P2.
● The total extent of property comprised in Re.Sy.No.193 of Maloth Village was 11.61 acres out of which one acre was assigned to the petitioner. Unless the boundaries of one acre of land assigned to the petitioner are identified and demarcated, the land assigned vide Ext.P2 cannot be taken possession of. The duty to demarcate the boundary was on the respondents and the same was not performed. ● As per Sub Rule 8 of Rule 31 of the KLR (Ceiling) Rules, the WP(C)NO.25576/2014 7 2025:KER:108 3rd respondent was obligated to demarcate the boundary of the assigned property. However, the 3 rd respondent did not comply with the same.
● Sub-Rule 9 of Rule 31 mandated that the 4 th respondent take steps to make necessary changes in the revenue records to survey and demarcate the land and issue a Patta in Form
20. As per the Village Manual (Clause 159), the 4 th respondent Village Officer was also entrusted with the task of issuing the patta. However, no demarcation was carried out and no patta was issued with respect to the land to the petitioner.
● After failing to perform their legally ordained duties, which incapacitated the petitioner from taking possession of the property, the respondents cannot invoke the provisions of Rule 9 of the very same KLR (Ceiling) Rules to cancel the assignment made to the petitioner.
● The petitioner had no notice of the special survey said to have been conducted by the revenue officials on 11.05.2010. The same was conducted behind her back. The report, if WP(C)NO.25576/2014 8 2025:KER:108 any, is thus not binding on her.
● As per Sub-Rule 6 of Rule 31 of the KLR (Ceiling) Rules, the 3rd respondent can only cancel an offer made under Sub Rule 1. Once the offer has been accepted and the first installment of the purchase price has been remitted leading to the execution of the assignment deed, the 3rd respondent cannot cancel the deed.
● By virtue of execution of the assignment deed, the right to hold the property stands transferred to the assignee i.e., the petitioner. The 3rd respondent cannot cancel the assignment deed after acceptance of the offer and execution of the assignment deed on the ground that the assignee had failed to take possession of the property.
● Rule 29 of the KLR (Ceiling) Rules does not enable the respondents to cancel an assignment deed for not taking possession of the land assigned. Thus Ext.P9 is ultra vires the powers of the 1st respondent.
● The petitioner is a rustic village lady. She cannot be expected to identify 1 acre of land from a larger extent of WP(C)NO.25576/2014 9 2025:KER:108 11.61 acres unless the boundaries are specified and demarcated. She reasonably expected that the demarcation would be carried out in accordance with law and that the same would enable her to take possession. The same never happened due to the default of the respondents. The petitioner cannot be faulted for the same.
● Ext.P9 cancellation of assignment is thus illegal and unsustainable on more than one grounds. Hence the same is fit to be quashed and the relief sought for granted.
6. Contentions of the respondents in brief :
● Ext.P9 has been validly issued and the same does not call for any interference.
● There has been an inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in taking possession of the property as mandated under Ext.P2.
● Ext.P2 deed of assignment dated 15.08.1978 issued to the petitioner is an agreement and she is bound by the terms thereof. It is specifically stated in Ext.P2 that the same is issued subject to the Kerala Land Reforms Act and 1963 WP(C)NO.25576/2014 10 2025:KER:108 and the KLR (Ceiling) Rules.
● Ext.P2 specifically states that it has been issued subject to the conditions and restrictions specified in Rule 29 of the KLR (Ceiling) Rules, 1970.
● Petitioner had been issued with a notice under Rule 18 on 27.10.1976. Thereafter, Ext.P1 offer of assignment was issued to the petitioner on 18.06.1977 as per Form 18 of the KLR (Ceiling) Rules. It was followed with Ext.P2 deed of assignment issued to the petitioner on 11.08.1978 as per Form 19 of the KLR (Ceiling) Rules. Thus all relevant steps had been completed 38 years back.
● Rule 29 (8) of the KLR (Ceiling) Rules mandates that the assignee shall for the period during which the alienation is prohibited, reside in the land if such land is used for the purpose of residence or personally cultivate the same if such land is used for agricultural purposes unless exempted in writing by the District Collector. Petitioner has violated the said condition and has no case that she had been exempted by the District Collector from complying with the mandate of WP(C)NO.25576/2014 11 2025:KER:108 the said rule.
● Rule 29 (8) of the KLR (Ceiling) Rules specifically states that the assignment shall be liable to be cancelled for contravention of any of the conditions or restrictions laid down in the Rules and the land assigned shall be liable to be resumed by or the instance of the authority which assigned the land as if such land is a land belonging to the Government and in the unauthorised occupation of the person then in possession or occupation after due hearing of such person to whom it has been assigned. The respondents while issuing Ext.P9 was only acting in furtherance of the said provision and had strictly complied with its mandates while doing so.
● Persons who had been assigned land in the very same survey number as that of the petitioner had taken due possession of the land assigned to them, while the petitioner neglected to take possession.
● The petitioner has violated the assignment terms and committed inordinate delays and laches. She has also WP(C)NO.25576/2014 12 2025:KER:108 apparently permitted other persons to occupy the said land and has not arrayed them as parties to this Writ Petition. If her contention is that the said land granted to her had been encroached upon, she ought to have raised such a complaint hereto before. No such complaint had been raised by the petitioner for 38 years. She is thus guilty of suppressing the fact of encroachment, if any. The petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands and hence is not entitled to any equitable remedy.
● Ext.P7 mentions the name of the petitioner as an assignee at No.5. It specifically states that she has not entered the property, taken possession of the same or used the usufructs therefrom. She had not protected the property and had also violated the mandates of the assignment rules. The names of the persons who were in illegal possession of the land thus assigned to the assignees including the petitioner have also been specifically stated therein. It is thus discernible from the report that the petitioner had without taking possession of the property in violation of its WP(C)NO.25576/2014 13 2025:KER:108 mandates of assignment permitted other people to occupy the land assigned to her.
● The petitioner, though she claims to have remitted the entire purchase price, the records reveal that she had only remitted a part of the purchase price that was permitted to be remitted in installments. Thus, she has violated the mandates of assignment on the said count also. ● The petitioner had not prior to 2011 preferred any request or representation before any of the respondents seeking to identify the property assigned or to measure or demarcate the same.
● The petitioner has woken up and preferred the representation dated 14.10.2011 only upon receipt of the notice dated 29.01.2011. The said fact, though has been suppressed by the petitioner is clearly discernible from the Writ Petition since all the representations preferred by her are subsequent to the said date. The conduct of the petitioner does not entitle her to seek any relief. Reliance is placed in this respect on the dictum laid down in Soudamini WP(C)NO.25576/2014 14 2025:KER:108 K.G. v. District Collector, Thrissur and others (2015 (2) KHC 702).
● The contention that an assignment made cannot be cancelled under Rule 29 of the KLR (Ceiling) Rules is incorrect. If the conditions as envisaged under the said provision have not been complied with, the authority issuing the same can cancel the assignment as empowered under the said Rule. Such empowerment is found clearly within the said provision itself and in Ext.P2. Reliance is placed in the said respect on the dictum laid down in Santhamma v. State of Kerala (1986 KHC 340) and District Collector, Quilon v. Bhaskara Kurup (1987 KHC 746).
● Though no period of limitation has been provided for filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petition should be filed within a reasonable time. The Writ Petition filed by the petitioner after an inordinate delay of decades and hence cannot be entertained in law. Resort to the extraordinary remedy under writ jurisdiction after a huge delay of nearly four decades is likely to cause WP(C)NO.25576/2014 15 2025:KER:108 confusion and public inconvenience and bring in injustice. Reliance is placed on the dictum in State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das (dead) thr. LRs.(2023 KHC 6702) ● It is trite law that a Writ Petition filed for a claim which is clearly barred by limitation had it been a suit is wholly misconceived. Reliance is placed on the dictum in Narahari Rao P.R. v. State of Kerala and others (2012 KHC 4930); Ghani Khan Choudhury Institute of Engineering & Technology v. Malda Construction Company (2024 KHC Online 4216) ● Through laches and acquiescence, the petitioner lost her right to equity. Reliance is placed on the dictum of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. N.Murugesan (2021 KHC 6603).
● Inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner disentitles her to seek the exercise in her favour, the discretion vested in this Court under Article 226. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Dugal Kumar [(2008) 14 SCC 295].
WP(C)NO.25576/2014 16
2025:KER:108 ● Petitioner is thus not entitled to any of the reliefs sought and the Writ Petition is only to be dismissed. Discussion and findings:
7. The petitioner had been assigned an extent of one acre of land under Section 96 of the KLR Act. As early as 27.10.1976, she had been issued with a Rule 18 notice with respect to such assignment as discernible from Ext.P1 offer of assignment. Thereafter, Ext.P1 had been drawn up as per Form 18 of the KLR (Ceiling) Rules and was issued to her on 18.06.1977. It was followed up with Ext.P2 deed of assignment dated 11.08.1978. Thus the assignment of property to the petitioner had been complete. However, according to the petitioner, there were further steps to be undertaken by the respondents. This included demarcating the property after identifying its boundaries, handing over physical possession of the land and then issuing a patta to the petitioner covering the relevant parcel of land. Petitioner's contention is that unless the said steps are completed, it is practically impossible for her to take possession of the property assigned vide Ext.P2. She attempts to buttress this contention by pointing to the fact that the property of 1 acre assigned WP(C)NO.25576/2014 17 2025:KER:108 to her was part of a larger extent of 11.61 acres of property which had been acquired from one Sri.P.V.George. Since Ext.P2 deed of assignment did not specify the boundaries of the property assigned, a rustic village lady like the petitioner cannot be expected to identify her one acre of land from the larger extent of 11.61 acres. She had thus a legitimate expectation that the respondents, as duty-bound, would take further steps to make the assignment effective. This never took place though the petitioner purportedly waited for nearly three decades. She had then moved the authorities with repeated representations. By this time, noting that the conditions of allotment had been violated, steps towards cancellation of the assignment had already been initiated which ultimately after a hearing, led to the issuance of Ext.P9 cancellation. Thus the principal questions to be considered are whether the petitioner had violated the terms of her assignment and whether the cancellation effected vide Ext.P9 is valid and legal.
8. The assignment deed (Ext.P2) has been drawn as per Form No.19 of the KLR (Ceiling) Rules. It specifically states that it has been issued subject to the provisions of the KLR Act and as per the WP(C)NO.25576/2014 18 2025:KER:108 conditions and restrictions specified in Rule 29 of the KLR (Ceiling) Rules. It is also subject to the additional conditions set forth in Ext.P2 deed. Rule 29 (8) of the KLR (Ceiling) Rules specifies that the assignee shall for the period during which the alienation is prohibited (which was 12 years in the case of the petitioner and later amended to 20 years) reside in the land if such land is used for the purpose of residence or personally cultivate the same, if such land is used for agricultural purposes. This condition could have been exempted by the District Collector vide an order in writing, if so requested by the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner never sought for such an exemption and it was never granted. Petitioner admittedly never took possession of the property assigned. Petitioner's reasoning for not taking possession is that the boundaries of the property assigned to her had not been demarcated in Ext.P2. The said argument cannot be countenanced for more reasons than one. Firstly, it is a fact that for a long period of around 33 years, the petitioner had not chosen to move any request or application to the respondents pointing to the need for identifying the property. As correctly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, it is discernible from the chronology of events WP(C)NO.25576/2014 19 2025:KER:108 that the petitioner has woken up and preferred the representation dated 14.10.2011 only upon receipt of the notice dated 29.01.2011. The inordinate delay and laches takes the wind away from the sail of the petitioner's case. As laid down in Eastern Coalfields Limited (supra), Murugesan (supra) & Narahari Rao (supra) law always favours the vigilant. Unexplained and inordinate delay cannot be countenanced. Secondly, the petitioner though has challenged Ext.P9, has not put forth any legally sustainable contentions to challenge the conclusion arrived therein. Admittedly the petitioner could not produce any document to show that she had remitted the entire purchase money. The contentions put forth by the respondents in the said respect remain uncontroverted. Payment of purchase price in installments in a condition specifically laid down under the KLR (Ceiling) Rules and in Ext.P2. Thirdly, Section 96 of the Act empowers the assignment of land by the Land Board subject to conditions and restrictions as prescribed. Rule 29 (8) of the KLR (Ceiling) Rules specifically states that the assignment shall be liable to be cancelled for contravention of any of the conditions or restrictions laid down in the Rules and the land assigned shall be liable to be resumed by or at WP(C)NO.25576/2014 20 2025:KER:108 the instance of the authority which assigned the land as if such land is a land belonging to the Government and in the unauthorised occupation of the person then in possession or occupation, after due hearing of such person to whom it has been assigned. Ext.P9 satisfies all the said legal mandates. It is also relevant to note at this juncture that other persons who were assigned land in the same survey number as the petitioner took possession of the property assigned to them. It is seen from Ext.P7 that strangers had occupied the property allotted to the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner never sought demarcation, that she never requested for evicting encroachments and remained silent with respect to her rights over the property for over a period of 33 years, prima facie lends force to the contention that she had willfully permitted the land to be occupied by others and had later chosen to raise non-demarcation as a ruse to suppress the illegal transfer. Thus the facts and circumstances also justify the issuance of Ext.P9. Equity also does not lie with the petitioner. It is well settled that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the power of a High Court to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction is discretionary. One of the grounds to refuse relief by a writ WP(C)NO.25576/2014 21 2025:KER:108 court is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. It is imperative that where the petitioner invokes extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, she should come to the court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. There has been unexplained delay of more than three decades on the part of the petitioner. On this count too, the W.P.(C) preferred by the petitioner has to fail.
9. The Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, was enacted inter alia to correct the imbalance in land ownership, ameliorate the living conditions of landless agricultural labourers, and eradicate poverty. The salutary objectives of the said enactment cannot be permitted to be whittled away by undeserved assignments. In a State like ours where land is scarce, assignments that lie in neglect and in violation of the terms of assignment deserve to be cancelled in accordance with law.
Conclusion In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought in the W.P.(C). The W.P.(C) is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
V.M. SYAM KUMAR JUDGE csl WP(C)NO.25576/2014 22 2025:KER:108 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25576/2014 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER OF ASSIGNMENT DTD.18/6/1977, IN PURSUANCE PROCEEDINGS NO.77094 OF 76, OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF ASSIGNMENT DTD.
11/8/1978 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE DISTRICT KANNUR(2ND RESPONDENT) EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR DTD. 20/9/2011 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 17/11/2011 ISSUED BY LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29/9/2012 ISSUED FROM CHIEF MINISTER'S OFFICE TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.4/2/2013 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 19/4/2013 ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND THE 5TH RESPONDENT CONTAINING THE PHOTO COPIES OF 21 REGISTRY AND COPY OF REPORT DTD. 18/2/2013 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.22401 OF 2013 DTD.9/9/2013 EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 14/8/2014 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE REFERENCE NO H6- 28146/2010