Petitioner was assigned 1.25 cents of land vide Ext.P1 dated 28.2.1980 under the Wayanad Colonization Scheme Rules, 1969. The said Rules have been framed under S.3 of the Kerala Land Assignment Act. Thereafter, the petitioner after 17 years received Ext.P2 notice as to why the assignment should not be cancelled. He submitted his version. But, by Ext.P3, the District Collector cancelled the assignment on the ground that the petitioner failed iii remitting the basic tax and it was remitted only on 20.1.1992 and that the petitioner is not irk possession of land from 28 2.1980 to 20.1.1992. Petitioner preferred Ext.P4 revision which came to be dismissed by Ext.P5. Ext.P6 review was also unsuccessful. Petitioner challenges Exts.P3, P5 and P7 and seeks a declaration that the assignment cannot be cancelled.

2. A Counter Affidavit has been filed, wherein, it is stated, inter alia, as follows:

"6. Many complaints were received by the Government against the assignment and the Government ordered the cancellation of assignment after obtaining a report from the District Collector. The District Collector issued the notice to the petitioner to show because why the assignment should not be cancelled. But, the petitioner could not justify the assignment in his favour. R.13 (2) of the Wayanad Colonization Scheme states the assignment on registry shall be liable to cancellation within a period of five years from the date of assignment if it is found that the assignment was inequitable or was made under mistake of fact in excess of the limit of powers delegated to the assigning authority or that there is any irregularity in procedure of such assignment. R.(5) states that the authority competent to order the cancellation of an assignment on registry shall be the authority which made the assignment or one superior to it.

7. In this case, assignment was ordered on 28.2.1980. The assignment was cancelled by the District Collector on 29.1997 as directed by the Government on 6.1997 as per R. 8(3) of the K.L.A. Rules, 1984. The District Collector had pointed out to Government that the assignment in this case comes under R.7A of W.C. Rules, 1969 which states that assignment is to be done following K.L.A. Rules, 1964 rather than WCS Rules, 1969. So provision of K.L.A. Rules prevails in this case. As per Rr.8 (3) and 21(9) of K.L.A. Rules, Government can at any time revise, cancel or alter the assignment order after giving notice. The District Collector cancelled the assignment on Government directions after issuing notice and verifying the details. Hence the orders passed by the District Collector and Land Revenue Commissioner are in order."

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend as follows:

Ext.P1 assignment was made under the Wayanad Colonization Scheme Rules. However, the impugned orders are in exercise of the powers under the Land Assignment Rules. He would submit that in so far as the assignment was done under the Wayanad Colonization Scheme Rules, 1969, there was no authority with the District Collector. He would further submit that the land tax was paid on 28.2.1980 and he paid the arrears in 1992. He would point out that from Ext.P5 it is clear that the order has been passed on the basis of the decision taken by the Government as revealed by the communication which is referred to in Ext.P3. The said decision of the Government was taken without hearing the petitioner and it is on the said basis that the Authority has cancelled the assignment, he contends.

5. Learned Government Pleader would, however, submit that power is available under the Land Assignment Rules, 1964. She fairly submits that the assignment was made under the Wayanad Colonization Scheme Rules. She would point out that the petitioner did not have possession.

6. As far as the first contention is concerned, I am of the firm view that the petitioner is justified in impugning the order