Petitioner challenges Exts.P-11, P-14 and P-17 orders which are referable to the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the "Conservancy Act", the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the "Conservancy Rules", the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960, "the Assignment Act", for short, and the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, "the Assignment Rules" for short.

2. Petitioner is the daughter of the sister of respondents 1 and 5 and thus, the granddaughter of Panchi and Korapaly.

3. 47 cents in R.S. 87/9 and 20 cents in R.S. 87/8 of Manjeswar Village were assigned to Panchi and his wife Korapaly in 1936. As they failed to pay land tax due on the land, the assignment was cancelled in 1937. No documents were there to show that the above cancellation of the assignment was with notice to them or that the cancellation was known to the assignees. On 20-4-1959, the assignees filed application for the issuance of permanent patta. By letter dated 15-5-1959, Panchi, the applicant, was directed to file an application in the prescribed form stating that "the petitioner is informed that claim for patta land will be considered on the application received in the prescribed manner". Accordingly, an application in the prescribed form was filed before the Tahsildar, Kasaragod on 18-5-1959. No documents were there to show that the said application was considered or that any action was taken on that application.

4. In 1987, the aforesaid land was assigned to the petitioner, pursuant to her application dated 22-12-1986 wherein it was alleged that she was holding that property for more than 10 years. A report was prepared by Sri V. K. Balakrishnan, the Special Tahsildar on 20-1-1987 and it was forwarded to Sri V. Krishnan, the Deputy Collector, Kasaragod. The above report would show the assignment of land in favour of Panchi and the cancellation in 1937. The above report of the Tahsildar would reveal the existence of a tiled house bearing door No. M. P.VII-560 of Manjeshwar Panchayath, and the existence of 2 bearing coconut trees aged about 40 years, 5 cashew plants aged about 10 years, 3 cashew plants aged about 5 years and other trees of spontaneous growth in the above property when he visited the property. The above report would further reveal that though the assignment was cancelled as early as in 1937, the parties were in possession of the property.

5. When respondents 1 and 5 came to know of the above assignment of land, they challenged it before the appellate authority. That appeal was dismissed. They preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. That revision was dismissed. Against the above order they preferred a revision before the Government. That revision was disposed of as per order dated 23-11-1998, whereby the Special Tahsildar was directed to consider the matter. The last para of that order reads:

"On perusing the connected records and after hearing the revision petitioner it is seen that the assignment was cancelled without issuing prior notice as prescribed in Kerala Land Assignment Rules. It is not clear why so much land was assigned to Kumari Jayanthi who is unmarried and alleged to have other landed properties. In the circumstance, the assignment of 67 cents of land to Kumari Jayanthi, the respondent herein is set aside with direction to the Special Tahsildar, Manjeswar for fresh disposal of the case taking into account, the above facts and also after examining the eligibility of Kumari Jayanthi for assignment of land in terms of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. The Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly."

6. Following the above direction, the Tahsildar passed order upholding the assignment in favour of the petitioner, however, without hearing respondents 1 or 5.

7. The aforesaid facts were noticed by this Court while Ext. P-8 judgment was rendered, on the basis of the entire files regarding the assignment which were then placed before the Co