The court emphasized the supremacy of land assignment restrictions over general property laws and upheld the validity of the resumption order based on the violation of land reform rules.

Since common questions are involved in these Original Petitions, they were 'heard jointly and disposed of by a common judgment.

2. Government assigned 50 cents of land in R. S.93 of Kolariamsom under S.96 of Kerala Land Reforms Act in favour of one Kumbathi Narayanan. As per proceedings of District Collector, Kannur, No.B8-60553/ 75 dated 24-4-1976. It appears, the said Narayanan assigned the entire land as per assignment deed No.2005/85 dated 19-11-1985 on the file of Mattannur S.R. p. in favour of the petitioner in O.P.No.i544/ 92. Subsequently in 1988, as per registered assignment deed dated 31-8-1988, petitioner in O.P. 1774/92 assigned the 281/4 cents of property in favour, of the petitioner in O.P.1544/92. It is alleged that Narayanan sold the property, when he was undergoing treatment for the purpose of raising funds for the treatment and the petitioner in O.P.1544/92 purchased the property for the purpose of putting up a godown for stocking gas cylinders. It is also submitted that he constructed a godown spending Rs.1,50,000/

3. While matters stood so, 1st respondent initiated proceedings under R.29(8) of Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules for resumption of the property on the ground that there is violation of R.29(1). Under the said Rules, an assignee of surplus land is prohibited for selling the land for a period of 12 years. On receipt of the notice, petitioners filed statements. It was contended that the show cause notice issued for resumption of land, after 1.2 years from the date of assignment in favour of Narayanan is illegal and the 1st respondent was not competent to resume the land. In the explanation submitted by the petitioner in O.P.1544/92, he stated that he purchased the land for stocking the gas cylinders and that he did not have financial capacity to purchase another land. It was also pointed out that he is a Scheduled Caste candidate and that factor also may be taken into account. However, the District Collector passed Ext.PS order, directing resumption of land and petitioners have challenged this in these Original Petitions.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. It is stated therein that the assignment in favour of Narayanan is liable to be cancelled for violation of sub-rule 1 of R.29 of Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970.

5. Two points have been raised by learned counsel for petitioners: (1) The provisions contained in R.29 (1) is opposed to S.10 of Transfer of Property Act; (2) The prohibition contained inR.29(1)(2) is only for 12 years and therefore the assignment in favour of petitioners beyond that period has not attracted the said Rule. I am unable to sustain any of these contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioners. Petitioners have not challenged the vires of R.29(1) or R.29(8) by impleading the Government, which has framed the Rule and for that reason alone, the first contention is liable to be rejected. This apart, the assignment in favour of Narayanan is under the provisions of Land Assignment Act and the Rules framed thereunder. S.8 of the Act reads as follows:

"8. Assignment to take effect with restrictions, conditions, etc. according to their tenor:--All the provisions, restrictions, conditions and limitations contained in any Patta or other document evidencing the assignment of Government land or of any interest therein shall be valid and take effect according to their ten or not with standing any law for the time being in force or any custom or contract to the contrary."

The assignment in favour of Narayanan contains a provision prohibiting any assignment before the expiry of 12 years. In view of the non-obstante clause contained in S.8, restrictions contained in the assignment should prevail notwithstanding anything contained in Transfer of Property Act. It is also highly doubtful whether a partial restriction would come within the mischief of S.10 of T.P. Act. It is not necessary forme to decide that question finally in the