A person's historical status as a landless individual cannot be negated by subsequent property ownership within the family; applications for land assignment must be fairly considered despite changes in circumstances.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by Exts.P13, P15, and P17 orders of the Additional Chief Secretary to the State, who represents the State in this Writ Petition. By Ext.P13, the petitioner's application, as a landless person, for assignment of land has been dismissed, since his wife is having a property her own, and the petitioner is living along with his wife and children in that property. Ext.P13 was sought to be reviewed, which was dismissed, vide Ext.P15, finding no reason for review. Once again a review is sought for vide Ext.P16, which also stands dismissed vide Ext.P17. Accordingly, Exts.P13, P15 and P17 are under challenge.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents. Perused the records.

3. Reference to various Exhibits produced in this Writ Petition will disclose the facts as follows:

4. The petitioner would claim that he was occupying various places in Idukki District from 1969 onwards. Initially, he came to a place called ‘Kurithykudy’, Manculam, in Idukki District, sometime during 1969. There, the petitioner constructed a hut and occupied almost 4 acres of Government land, wherein he was conducting cultivation. Until 1981, he resided therein. By an order dated 21.12.1981, the respondent officials evicted the petitioner and his family. The hut was demolished, and the crops were destroyed, is the contention. Thereafter, the petitioner along with his family, shifted to the revenue land at ‘Perumbankuth’ and occupied certain extent of land therein, for cultivation. Finding that the said land is proposed to be set apart to be assigned to landless persons, the petitioner and family again shifted to the cancelled plot at ‘Arammile’, and from there to ‘Anpatham Mile’. For survival and sustenance, the petitioner and his family were thus driven from place to place.

5. On 11.01.1982, the petitioner made an application before the 4^th respondent for assignment of Government land for cultivation. His application was numbered as 189/1982, and it was forwarded to the Special Tahsildar (Land Assignment), Devikulam, for necessary enquiry. The same is decipherable from Ext.P1 communication issued by the Sub Collector to the petitioner. Vide Ext.P2, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Special Tahsildar (Land Assignment). Exts.P4 and P5 are the electoral cards of the petitioner in Devikulam constituency. When nothing transpired, the petitioner approached this Court by filing an Original Petition, which culminated in Ext.P6 judgment, wherein the specific question posed by the learned single Judge was whether the petitioner is eligible for assignment. Ext.P6 recorded the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner's request will receive fair and sympathetic consideration, consistent with provisions of law, at the hands of the District Collector, Idukki. The said submission was recorded and there was a direction to take decision in the petitioner's application for assignment of land within three months from the date of judgment, i.e, 10.04.1992. By Ext.P7 dated 04.09.1996, the Revenue Inspector informed the Tahsildar that the petitioner is entitled to the assignment sought for, after taking into account various factual aspects. Ext.P7 refers to the places where the petitioner and his family have dwelled and the places, where they were compelled to shift. In tune with Ext.P7, a recommendation was made by the Tahsildar to the District Collector, vide Ext.P8 dated 15.11.1996, wherein the