The court ruled that procedural fairness requires an opportunity for the Petitioner to contest against unjust limitations on land assignment rights.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12^th December, 2025

1. The Petitioner filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P9 Order of the District Legal Services Authority, Kasaragod, and seeking direction to the Respondents to assign an extent of 1.88 Acres of land situated in R.S. Nos.106/7, 108/2 & 111/10 of Delampady Village to the Petitioner. Ext.P9 is the Order by which the 2^nd Respondent/District Collector is directed to pass appropriate orders with respect to the assignment of 15 cents of land since the Tahsildar reported before the District Legal Services Authority, Kasaragod, that steps for the assignment of 15 cents of land is taken as per de-reservation and the file is forwarded to the 2^nd Respondent.

2. The Petitioner claims to be a tailor by profession. He claims that he and his predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the aforesaid 1.88 Acres of land. He applied for assignment of the said 1.88 Acres of land to the 4^th Respondent on 04.08.1978 as per L.A. No.5/1978/Delampady. The 4^th Respondent/Tahsildar issued Ext.P1 Notice to the Petitioner to appear before him on 03.01.1978. The Petitioner appeared and submitted that he has constructed a residential building on the said land; that he has planted 280 rubber trees and 80 coconut trees, and he has improved the land very much; and that he has no other land or property in his possession. Though the 4^th Respondent agreed to assign the land in favour of the Petitioner, no further action was taken by the 4^th Respondent. On enquiry, the Petitioner understood that the Application submitted by the Petitioner on 04.08.1978 was missing. Accordingly, a fresh Application was submitted in the year 1990, and the same was numbered as L.A. No.24/1990 of Delampady. The 3^rd Respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer conducted an enquiry and submitted a report that the land can be assigned to the Petitioner. Since no further action has been taken, the Petitioner submitted an Application before the Land Assignment Committee, Kasaragod, and the Land Assignment Committee reported that the land can be assigned to the Petitioner. When the Petitioner petitioned in the Chief Minister's Janasamparka Paripadi – December, 2011, Ext.P6 decision was taken that the assignment will be sanctioned soon after getting the rectification report from the 5^th Respondent/Village Officer concerned as per the Kerala Land Assignment Rules , since the proposal of the Petitioner has already been submitted to the 4^th Respondent and due to some defect, the file has been returned to the 5^th Respondent. Since there was no further communication from the 4^th Respondent, the Petitioner petitioned before the District Legal Services Authority, Kasaragod, and the 4^th Respondent filed a report before the District Legal Services Authority stating that the Petitioner is entitled to get only 15 cents of land. Under the circumstances, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P9 and seeking direction to assign the said 1.88 Acres of land to the Petitioner.

3. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner died and his legal heirs were impleaded as additional Petitioners 2 to 4.

4. Two persons were impleaded as additional 6^th and 7^th Respondents on the allegation that they are trying to trespass into the above land.

5. The 2^nd Respondent has filed a Counter Affidavit opposing the prayers in the Writ Petition and stating that the Petitioner is entitled to get only 15 cents of land for house site under the prevailing guidelines issued by the Government under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules .

6. I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri. Kodoth Pushparajan