2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 37056
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALEE KRISHNA S., J
JOHN JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5005 of 2007
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Adv. Daisy A. Philipose
For the Respondents: Sri. M.H. Hanilkumar
Court emphasized the need for timely completion of land assignment processes, especially after eligibility is established under applicable laws, notwithstanding pending investigations.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - Section 96 - Writ petition for assignment of excess land - Petitioners claiming eligibility for assignment of land as per the offer made under the Ceiling Rules - Allegations of irregularities have delayed the assignment process - Court directed respondents to consider petitioners' eligibility and finalize assignment proceedings expeditiously. (Paras 2, 8, 12, 13, 14)
(B) Procedure for assignment - Requirement of eligibility verification before assignment - Involvement of third-party complaints and ensuing investigations must be considered in the decision process regarding assignments. (Paras 12, 13)
Muralee Krishna, J.
This writ petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1 st respondent District Collector, Idukki and the 2 nd respondent Tahsildar, Peermade, to execute deed of assignment and deliver the possession of the lands, which were offered to the petitioners as per Exts. P1 to P3 offer of assignments and to complete the assignment proceedings immediately, and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to assign the properties offered to the petitioners as per Exts.P1 to P3, to any other person.
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, an extent of 1026 Acres of land was taken possession by the Government as excess land under the provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act in Manjumala Village of Idukki District. On 22.02.1985, a notice under Rule 27 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules 1970 (‘the Ceiling Rules’ in short) was issued by the Government, inviting applications for assignment of the abovementioned land to eligible persons. Pursuant to the same, the petitioners submitted applications for the assignment of lands. Being convinced that the petitioners are eligible for getting the lands on assignment and preparing of list of eligible persons, the 2 nd respondent issued Exts. P1 to P3 offer of assignments bearing No.C2-1674/85 informing the respective petitioners that the Land Board, Peermadu, has decided to offer assignment of the lands mentioned in the schedules thereto, on registry, on condition that the petitioners pay Rs.400 each, either in lump sum or in 15 installments. As directed, the petitioners paid the first installment of the purchase price on 28.03.1985, 27.03.1985 and 26.03.1985 respectively and produced the Challan receipt before the 2 nd respondent within the stipulated time. However, before completion of the proceedings for the assignment, some local residents filed complaints and a Vigilance enquiry was initiated. Pursuant to this, the entire process of assignment was stopped, as the records were produced in EC 1/94 pending before the Vigilance Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. However, the records were handed over to the office of the 2 nd respondent on 01.03.2000 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. Since no further proceedings were taken in the matter, petitioners 1 and 2, along with 4 others, filed W.P.(C)No.5005 of 2007, before this Court for a direction to survey and demarcate the properties and complete the assignment proceedings. By Ext.P4 judgment dated 05.12.2016, the writ petition was disposed of by this Court directing the respondents to consider the assignment of lands to the petitioners, in accordance with law. Thereafter, petitioners 1 and 2 sent Exts.P5 and P6 lawyer notices to respondents 1 and 2 requesting them to do the needful as directed in Ext.P4 judgment. Even after receipt of the said notices, no action was taken by the respondents and hence the petitioners approached this Court alleging that it is reliably learned that the 2 nd respondent is taking hasty steps to assign the lands offered to the petitioners to some other persons who were not in the list of eligible assignees, prepared on 1985.
3. On 23.10.2019, this Court admitted the writ petition. The learned Government Pleader took notice for the respondents. On 16.01.2020, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this court passed an interim order directing the respondents not to assign the properties referred to in Exts.P1 to P3 to any other person, till the disposal of the writ petition.
4. The 2 nd respondent filed a statement dated 11.12.2023 producing there with Ext.R2(a) document. Paragraphs 4 to 6 of that statement read thus:
“4. It is respectfully submitted that the District Collector, Idukki had invited applications for assignment of 356.46 Acres of land to eligible persons, vide notification dated 22.02.1985 in Form No.16 under Rule 27(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms (C