The Tahsildar's authority to decide land assignment applications hinges on the eligibility of the applicants and the consistency of land particulars, not merely occupancy.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners seek to quash Exts.P6 and P8, the former being an Order passed by the 4^th respondent/Tahsildar, rejecting petitioners' application for assignment of Government land, and the latter, an Order passed by the 3^rd respondent/R.D.O, confirming Ext.P6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, an application for assignment in terms of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules , 1964 ('the Rules', for short), is liable to be considered by the Taluk Land Assignment Committee in terms of Rule 12(3). Inasmuch as the said procedure has not been followed, Exts.P6 and P8 suffer from a serious infirmity in law, is the point mooted.

2. Learned Government Pleader would try to sustain Exts.P6 and P8, by taking recourse to the provision in Rule 12(2) of the Rules. The fate of this Writ Petition will depend upon the interpretation of Rule 12(2) of the Rules.

3. Rule 12(2) of the Rules is extracted herebelow:

“12. Enquiry to be held-

(1) xxxx (2) Application by persons in possession for the assignment of land involved in Kutahakapattam and Land Conservancy cases may be disposed of by the Tahsildar, if the applicants are eligible to get the land on assignment under these rules and if there is no pronounced disparity regarding the particulars of the land as furnished in the case records and as found in actual occupation.”

4. Learned Government Pleader would point out that, in cases of application by persons, who are in possession of the land, sought to be assigned, and when such lands are either involved in Kuthakapattam or Land Conservancy cases, the Tahsildar is the competent authority. If that be so, Ext.P6 is legal and valid, and Ext.P8, being an appellate Order by the R.D.O, also cannot suffer from any infirmity. This argument was seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, pointing out that, for Rule 12(2) to apply, there are further conditions to be applied, namely, (i) the applicant should be eligible to get the land on assignment under the Rules, and (ii) there is no pronounced disparity regarding the particulars of the land, as furnished in the case records, and as found in actual occupation. In the instant case, the statement filed by the 3^rd respondent/R.D.O. would negate the petitioners' eligibility. In such situation, Rule 12(2) cannot be resorted to, is the argument mooted.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court can only endorse the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is true that the categories, which can be decided by the Tahsildar are identifiable from Rule 12(2), as cases involved in Kuthakapattam and Land Conservancy cases. However, that, by itself, will not govern the eligibility of the Tahsildar to dispose of the applications for land assignment. Even in respect of those two categories, the Tahsildar will get jurisdiction, if the applicants are eligible to get the land on assignment under the Rules, and in a case where there is no pronounced disparity regarding the particulars of the land as per records; and as occupied by the applicant. In the instant case, it is true that the petitioners are in occupation of the land, which is sought to be assigned in their favour. However, their eligibility is also a matter to be looked into, before pressing into service Rule 12(2). This Court is of the opinion that the obvious purpose of Rule 12(2) conferring power upon the Tahsildar - in deviation from ordinary cases - is expediency, confined to cases where the dispute is narrowed down - in the sense that the eligibility of the petitioners are not in question, and that there is no disparity between the official records, and the