IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 17TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 23696 OF 2019 PETITIONER:

VINCENT.P.T, AGED 57 YEARS S/O. THOMAS PORATHUR HOUSE, MUNDOOR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

BY ADV V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS:

1 SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001

2 LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANNATHAPURAM PIN 695 001

3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR PIN 680 003

4 TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR PIN 680 022

5 VILLAGE OFFICER, THANGALLUR VILLAGE OFFICE, THANGALLUR, THRISSUR PIN 680 581 BY GP – SRI.ASWIN SETHUMADHAVAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

08.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.R3(a) proceedings of the District Collector dated 28.09.2019, whereby, his application for assignment of certain extents of land, comprised of in Resurvey No.42/2 of Thengaloor Village, has been turned down, stating that on enquiry no surplus lands have been found.

2. The petitioner says that Ext.R3(a) does not reflect the truth because the total extent of his land is 3 Acres and 4 cents, while only an extent of 34 cents have been set apart for assignment to eligible persons under the 'Zero Landless Scheme'. He asserts that he is entitled to the assignment, as sought for through Ext.P19, because Ext.P17 Government Order clearly holds so and because it has been confirmed by this Honourable Court in Ext.P18 judgment.

3. The petitioner contends that, therefore, the competent respondent is obligated to consider Ext.P19 and adds that if he is given an opportunity, he will be able to point out to the said Authority that what is stated in Ext.R3(a) is not the truth.

4. I have heard Sri.V.M.Krishnakumar –

learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Aswin Sethumadhavan – learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents.

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader, in response, submitted that Ext.R3(a) has been issued by the District Collector not because he has found any cause against the petitioner's request, but because it is practically impossible to allot any plot to him in the survey number in question. He submitted that, as is evident from the said communication, there is no surplus land available in the survey number because its entire extent has been earmarked for being allotted for other public purposes, including for assignment to persons coming under the 'Zero Landless Scheme'. He, however, then offered that if the petitioner is able to point out any surplus land in the survey number, the competent Authority can certainly consider it; and prayed that this Court dispose of this Writ Petition only to such effect.

6. When I consider the afore submissions, it is without doubt that Ext.R3(a) only says that there is no surplus land available, to be assigned to the petitioner, in Resurvey No.42/2 of Thengaloor Village. This is essentially a question of fact, which this Court cannot resolve while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the petitioner asserts that the extent of the afore survey number is much more than what has been earmarked for the purpose of assignment under the 'Zero Landless Scheme', I am certain that he must be given an opportunity of establishing it to the competent Authority without any delay, particularly because he says that his licence for running his business is to expire in the year 2022.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the petitioner to mark appearance before the 3^rd respondent-District Collector at 11 a.m. on 28.09.2021; on which day the said Authority will hear him, based on all documents and materials which he may produce, thus leading to decision whether any land, capable of being assigned to him based on Ext.P19, is available in Resurvey No.42/2 of Then