Amendments to property alienation rules do not apply retrospectively if the original rule's lock-in period has expired.

J U D G M E N T Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2026 The issue involved in this writ petition is a condition which clogs alienability of a property, which has been assigned by virtue of the special rules, by name Government Land Assignment (Thonnakkal Harijan Colony) Rules, 1971. Petitioners would contend that, Ext.P1 is a patta issued in favour of the 1^st petitioner’s father under the above said rules. A similar patta was issued in favour of the 2^nd petitioner’s father, as well. Though there is no condition in restraint of alienation contained in Ext.P1, the above referred rules, which is produced at R3(a), vide Rule 13(1), contains the following restriction:

“13.Land not to be alienated:-

(1) The land assigned under these Rules are heritable but it shall not be alienated for a period of 25 years.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that, Ext.P1 patta was issued on 24.08.1972 and lock-

in period of 25 years had already expired. Learned counsel would also point out that an amendment has also been brought into Rule 13(1) in the year 1997, vide Ext.P8 G.O.M.S.No.26/97 dated 31.03.1997, which is extracted here below:

“ 13(1) 25 .

ചട്ടം ൽ ക(cid:6)ൊല്ലത്തേ(cid:10)ക്ക് എന്നത് റദ്ദ് കചയ്യുന്നു

13(2)

ചട്ടം ൽ അവസൊനമൊയി പതിച്ചു(cid:6)ിട്ടുന്ന ഭൂമി യഥൊർഥ .”

അനന്തരൊവ(cid:6)ൊശി(cid:6)ൾക്ക് കൈ(cid:6)മൊറ്റം കചയ്യൊവുന്നതൊണ്

3. According to the learned counsel, Ext.P8 amendment can only be prospective, wherefore, the petitioners cannot be under any fetters to alienate the property. Ext.P6 application preferred by the petitioners in this regard was rejected vide Ext.P7 Order, which is under challenge in this writ petition. A similar application preferred by the 2^nd petitioner stands rejected vide Ext.P9.

4. Learned Special Government Pleader would submit that by virtue of the amendment vide Ext.P8 extracted above, the property can only be inherited/alienated in favour of the legal heirs, and there cannot be any alienation to a 3^rd person.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as, the learned Special Government Pleader, this Court finds it difficult to endorse the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader. Primarily, this Court finds force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Ext.P8 amendment can only be prospective and cannot govern pattas like Ext.P1, which was issued as early as on 1972. Reliance in this regard has been placed by the learned counsel in Ext.P10 judgment, wherein another judgment in Bhaskaran P.R. v. State of Kerala [(2010) 2 KLT 908] is seen relied on. Secondly, this Court notice that the period of 25 years stipulated in Ext.P1 has already expired.

6. For the above said reasons, Exts.P7 and P9 Orders cannot be sustained and the same will stand set aside. In the circumstances, Ext.P6 application and also another representation preferred by the 2^nd petitioner has to be reconsidered in the light of the findings and observations in this judgment, by the 4^th respondent and appropriate Orders passed, in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Petitioners will produce a copy of the judgment before the 4^th respondent, for compliance.

The writ petition will stand disposed of, as above.

Sd/-