Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 16344
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
JAYAKUMAR MENON – Appellant
Versus
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C)/15186/2020
SRI.C.A.JOY, SMT. MABLE C. KURIAN
The court established that affected parties must be provided notice and an opportunity to be heard before land registry cancellations are executed.
Headnote:
Land - Land Assignment Rules - Rule 8(2), 8(3) - The court quashed the cancellation of land registry due to failure to provide notice and opportunity to be heard, upholding principles of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
The Tahsildar cancelled the registry of land purchased by the petitioner, claiming the original assignee had not resided or cultivated the land within the stipulated time, without notifying the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation process violated the Rules and principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was an affected party not given an opportunity to be heard.
Issues: Whether the cancellation of the land registry was valid due to non-compliance with notice provisions and opportunity to be heard as per the Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The failure to provide notice and opportunity for the petitioner to present their case before cancelling the registry was a breach of procedural fairness.
Final Decision: The orders of cancellation were quashed, and the matter was directed for reconsideration with proper notice to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
The Tahsildar, Hosdurg Taluk, the 2nd respondent herein, invoked powers under Rule 8(2) of the Land Assignment Rules, 1964 (‘the Rules’ for short) and cancelled the registry of a piece of land purchased by the petitioner on the strength of Ext.P1 sale deed vide No.3119/2011 of the Hosdurg SRO. The assignment was cancelled on the ground that the original assignee or his successor-in-interest had never put up residence or had cultivated the property within the statutory period of one year from the date of assignment.
2. The petitioner states that the property was originally assigned to a certain K.Mohanan on 29.7.1988 by order issued by the Special Tahsildar (LA) Hosdurg and patta was issued to him under Rule 9 of the Rules. The original assignee had assigned the property to Sri. O.M.Alexander by a sale deed executed in the year 2011. It was from the aforesaid O.M.Alexander that the petitioner had purchased the property in the year 2011. Thereafter, he has remitted tax in his name and has effected mutation as is evident from Ext.P3. The petitioner states that the 2nd respondent initiated proceedings under Rule 8(2) of the Rules and proceeded to cancel the registry without notice to the petitioner. He would contend that the proviso to Rule 8(3) mandates that before cancellation of registry, the party or parties affected shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner states that the above mandate was not honoured and he was not put on notice. In the said circumstances, he mounted a challenge before the appellate authority under Rule 21 of the Rules. There was some delay in filing the appeal as the petitioner received information of the cancellation of the order only when he attempted to remit land tax. His appeal was rejected by the appellate authority on the ground of delay and on account of the failure of the petitioner to produce the original order. According to the petitioner, the appellate authority failed to note that the procedure contemplated under the Rules was not followed and the petitioner, though an interested party, was not put on notice. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P5 and P7 and also for issuance of directions to consider the matter afresh.
3. I have heard Sri.C.A. Joy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Mable C. Kurian, the learned Government Pleader.
4. Sri. C.A.Joy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the land assigned to the original assignee is heritable and assignable. The original assignment was in the year 1988, but the cancellation of registry was carried out in 2019 after more than three decades. The rules mandate that the affected person be granted an opportunity of being heard. In the case on hand, no such notice was issued by the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel would also refer to Ext.P8 minutes of meeting dated 15.10.2019 obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act and he would contend that the District Collector had given specific instructions to the revenue officers not to issue notice to the present occupiers. According to the learned counsel, this would clearly be violative of the provisions of the Rules and a clear case of violation of the principles of natural justice.
5. Smt. Mable C. Kurian sought to sustain the order. It is contended that the original assignees did not occupy the property within a period of one year or any time later. A report was called for and it was after ascertaining the actual facts that the assignment was cancelled. It is further contended that the original assignee could not have assigned the land within a period of ten years and if there is any violation, the Tahsildar could have initiated appropriate action.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced. The contentions raised revolves around Rule 8(2) and (3) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 .
8. Conditions of assignment on registry:-
(I) Lands
