SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MADAN B. LOKUR, DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.
Karunakaran – Appellant(s)
Versus
V. Padmini & Ors. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4535 OF 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.23266 of 2014)
Decided On : 28-03-2017
Facts of the case:
One Mr. K.P. Gopinathan was a landlord whose lands came under the purview of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The land which is the subject matter of the present proceedings was declared to be surplus land by the landlord.
Respondent No.1 filed applications claiming assignment of the property measuring 8 cents in her favour which was granted and Assignment Deed was entered into by Respondent No.1 with the State Government on 12.11.1991.
The appellant herein challenged the assignment of the land in favour of Respondent No.1 by filing a petition before the District Collector, Kozhikode. The Collector recalled the earlier order assigning the land in favour of Respondent No.1.
Respondent No.1 filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. The Single Judge held that the Collector had no power to recall the earlier order and the order of assignment could not be recalled. Against this order the appellant filed a Writ Appeal which has been dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
Respondent obtained assignment by playing fraud.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.02.2014 passed in Writ Appeal No.1335 of 2013, whereby the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court upheld the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Mr. K.P. Gopinathan was a landlord whose lands came under the purview of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The land which is the subject matter of the present proceedings was declared to be surplus land by the landlord.
Originally, Respondent No.1 filed an application claiming Kudikidappukars (tenancy) rights on the land. This claim of Respondent No.1 was rejected by the Board constituted under the Act, some time in the year 1988. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 filed applications claiming assignment of the property measuring 8 cents in her favour on the ground that she was a landless agricultural labourer entitled to assignment of such rights in terms of Section 96 of the Act which reads as follows:-
“96. Assignment of lands by Land Board. (1) The Land Board shall assign on registry subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed, the lands vested in the Government under Section 86 or Section 87, as specified below:
(i) the lands in which there are kudikidappukars shall be assigned to such kudikidappukars;
(ii) the remaining lands shall be assigned to –
(a) landless agricultural labourers; and
(b) smallholders and other landlords who are not entitled to resume any land:
Provided that eighty-seven and a half per cent of the area of the lands referred to in clause (ii) available for assignment in a taluk shall be assigned to landless agricultural labourers of which one-half shall be assigned to landless agricultural labourers belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and such other socially and economically backward classes of citizens as may be specified in this behalf by the Government by notification in the Gazette.
Explanation. – For the purposes of this sub-section-
(a) a kudikidappukaran or the tenant of a kudiyiruppu shall be deemed to be a landless agricultural labourer if he does not possess any other land;
(b) “kudikidappukaran shall include a person who was a kudikidppukaran to whom a certificate of purchase has been issued under sub-section (2) of Section 80C.”
xxx xxx xxx
On 23.10.1991, assignment of 6 cents of land was granted in favour of Respondent No.1 by the District Collector, Kozhikode and Assignment Deed was entered into by Respondent No.1 with the State Government on 12.11.1991.
4. It would be pertinent to mention that at the time of verification of the assignment, inspection of the property was done. It was found that from the year 1978 Respondent No.1, along with her family had been residing in a building which covered 6 cents out of the total land measuring 8 cents. The remaining 2 cents of land was under a shed. Therefore, only 6 cents was assigned in favour of Respondent No.1. Thereafter, the original landlord filed O.P. No. 311 of 1992 in the High Court of Kerala claiming that since the land was admittedly covered by a building, the same did not fall under purview of the Act. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition and referred the matter to the Taluk Land Board for reconsideration of the entire case. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 filed Writ Appeal No.898 of 1992 before the High Court of Kerala. During the pendency of the Writ Appeal the original landlord stated that the matter had been settled out of court and he did not want to continue with the original writ petition itself. Therefore, the Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and disposed of the Writ Appeal on 07.09.1993.
5. The appellant herein challenged the assignment of the land in favour of Respondent No.1 by filing a petition under Rule 29(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970 befo
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.