District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram v. Rukhia Beevi and The Secretary, Kattakada Grama Panchayat

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 RP NO. 934 OF 2022 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT WP(C) 5984/2011 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/S: ``` ``` THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN - 695043 BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** |**`1`**|**`RUKHIA BEEVI`**| |---|---| ||**`W/O. LATE MOHAMMED HANEEFA, ABDUL RAHIM MANZIL,`**| ||**`KILLIKOLLODE P.O., KULATHUMEL VILLAGE,`**| ||**`MALAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695571`**| |**`2`**|**`THE SECRETARY`**| ||**`KATTAKADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH., PIN - 695572`**| ||**`BY ADVS.`**| ||**`LIJU.V.STEPHEN`**| ||**`INDU SUSAN JACOB(K/001745/2001)`**| ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`S RENJITH SPL. GP`** ``` THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 2 ## **O R D E R** ## **S. Manikumar, CJ** Instant review petition is filed seeking review against the dismissal of the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 5984 of 2011 dated 24.11.2021. 2. In W.P.(C) No. 5984 of 2011, writ petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order, quashing Exhibit-P1 order of the learned Lok Ayukta in Complaint No. 2135/2007 dated 20.08.2010. 3. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that, in Complaint No. 2135/2007 dated 20.08.2010, Lok Ayukta directed the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, review petitioner, to assign 1 acre and 38 cents of lands in survey No. 295/1 (old survey No. 304/2) of Kulathummal Village to Smt. Rukhia Beevi, 1[st] respondent/ complainant. 4. The opposite party objected to the application for assignment on the ground that as per the existing rules, consent of the Panchayat is necessary for assignment of the land, and Kattakada Grama Panchayat, respondent No.2, has objected to the assignment of the land. It is also submitted that as per the existing rules, maximum area of land that can be RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 3 assigned is only 50 cents. Without considering these objections, Lok Ayukta passed the impugned order. 5. After considering the rival submissions, by judgment dated 24.11.2021 in W.P.(C) No. 5984 of 2011, this Court dismissed the writ petition, as under: “5. Going by the facts deciphered by the Lok Ayukta, it is clear that the first respondent had a contention that the property was in possession of the predecessor in interest of the first respondent for the past several decades and even though applications were filed for assignment of the land and suitable recommendations were made by the statutory authority as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960 and the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 no sufficient steps were taken to grant the assignment and issue patta to the predecessor in title of the first respondent or the first respondent. On a deeper analysis of the facts and circumstances, it is clear that in spite of the pendency of the application for assignment and the recommendations made by the statutory authority as per the Act 1960 and the Rules 1964, there was a clear lethargic attitude from the part of the statutory authorities in granting assignment. Therefore, it can be seen that it is a clear mal-administration as defined under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1990. Therefore, the contention advanced by the learned Senior Government Pleader that the Lok Ayukta did not have power to consider the complaint cannot be sustained under law. On a perusal of the order passed by the Lok Ayukta, it is clear that the RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 4 Lok Ayukta has considered the issue threadbare taking into account the provisions of the Act, 1960 and the Rules, 1964. 6. In order to identify the legality of the order passed by the Lok Ayukta, it is better that some of the relevant provisions of the Land Assignment Act, 1960 and the Rules, 1964 are discussed. Section (2)(b) defines the assignee which “includes his heirs”. Therefore, the first respondent Rukhia Beevi, who has claimed to be the legal heir of the occupier of the property in question, is a person entitled to assignment under the Act 1960. Assignment of Government land is dealt with under Section 3, which reads thus: “3. Assignment of Government land.--Government land may be assigned by the Government or by any prescribed authority either absolutely or subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as may be prescribed. [(2) No Government land assignable for public purpose may be assigned under sub-section (1) without consulting the local authority as defined in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (13 of 1994) or the Kerala Municipality Act 1994 (20 of 1994) as the case may be, and if such local authority requires such land, for carrying out any of the functions assigned to it, Government may set apart such land for that purpose”] Explanation.--Any restriction as to alienation, whether voluntary or otherwise , of the rights of the assignee, shall be a restriction within the meaning of this section. 7. Section 4 deals with 'procedure to be followed before Government lands are assigned'. Sub-Section (1) thereto specifies that when any Government land is proposed to be assigned by the prescribed authority, otherwise than by way of a lease or license, the Tahsildar of the taluk in which the land is situate or any officer empowered by the Government in this behalf shall notify in the RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 5 prescribed manner that such land will, by public auction or otherwise, be assigned, and call upon those who have got any claim to such land to prefer to him their objections, if any, in writing within a time which shall be specified in such notification. Sub Section 2 thereto specifies that if any objection is preferred within the time specified in the notification, the Tahsildar or such other officer shall enquire into the same and pass an order in writing either accepting or rejecting the claim in full or in part and intimate in writing the fact of such disposal to the claimant. 8. Section 5 deals with 'order of assignment' which stipulates that (a) when the time fixed in the notification under Sub Section (1) of Section 4 has elapsed and no objection has been preferred; or (b) when any objection preferred is rejected and – (i) the time for preferring an appeal from the order has elapsed and no appeal has been preferred; or (ii) when an appeal has been preferred and the appeal is, rejected by the appellate authority, the land may, subject to such rules as may be made by the Government in this behalf, be assigned by the prescribed authority. The State Government has made the Land Assignment Rules by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 7 of the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960 in supersession of the erstwhile rules. Rule 2 (cc) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 defines “encroachment not considered objectionable” means encroachment on Government land, which is available for assignment, by a person or a family eligible to get land, on registry under these rules. 'Government land' is defined under Rule 2(e) to include lands belonging to the Government and available for RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 6 assignment as per lists prepared by the Revenue Department and approved by the competent authority under the Rules and such other lands as may be set apart for the purposes of the Rules. Rule 4 deals with the 'purposes for which the land may be assigned' which states that Government lands may be assigned on registry for purposes of personal cultivation, house-sites and beneficial enjoyment of adjoining registered holdings. Rule 5 as it originally stood deals with 'maximum limit to be assigned for cultivation' and sub Rule (1) thereto states that the extent of land that shall be registered in favour of a single family for personal cultivation by members of the family shall not ordinarily exceed--(a) in the case of unoccupied lands, not more than one acre of land, whether wet or dry, with the plains and not more than one acre of wetland or three acres of dry lands in hilly tracts. However, as per the amendment dated 3.3.2005 clause (a) of Rule 5(1) reads thus: “in the case of unoccupied lands, not more than 50 cents of land, whether wet or dry in the plains and not more than one acre of wetland or three acres of dry land in hilly tracts.” 9. Admittedly, as held by the Lok Ayukta recommendations were made for assignment of the land by the statutory authority under the Act, 1960 and the Rules, 1964 in favour of the first respondent as per an application submitted on 19.07.1994, i.e. much before the amendment specified above. 10. The Lok Ayukta after assimilating the factual situation has found that even though amendment was brought in the year 2005, application was pending before the statutory authority for long i.e., RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 7 almost ten years, and in spite of the recommendations made no final decision was taken and therefore, the issue had to be considered taking into account Rule 5(1)(a) as it originally existed, which finding cannot be said to be irrational, illegal or arbitrary for the primary reason that the maladministration defined under Act 1999, is incorporated therein and designed accordingly for the purpose of eliminating such unethical and protracted attitude of the State Government and its officials. 11. Rule 12 deals with the enquiry to be held in the matter of assignment of the land which reads thus: ## “12. **Enquiry to be held** , [(1) Before considering an application for assigning the land, the Tahsildar shall publish a notice under his signature inviting objections in writing from interested persons to the registry of land. The notice shall be in the form in Appendix V to these rules and give a minimum of fifteen days' time from the date of publication for preferring objections and the Tahsildar may, in his discretion, admit objections received after that period. The notice shall be published by affixture in a conspicuous place in the land concerned and also in the Village Panchayat and Taluk offices and such publication shall be deemed to be legal and sufficient for purposes of these rules]. (2) Application by persons in possession for the assignment of land involved in Kuthakapattam 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 of records and as found in actual occupation. (3) The list of assignable lands and the list of lands to be reserved for Government or public purposes are to be placed before the Taluk Land Assignment Committee for its recommendation and to be forwarded to the District Collector for approval. The applications received for assignment on registry shall be duly enquired into by the Tahsildar and placed before the Taluk Land Assignment Committee for considering its merits. The RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 8 reasons for rejection, if any, should be recorded in writing. In cases where the orders of the District Collector have to be obtained, the Tahsildar shall submit the case to the District Collector along with the recommendation of the Taluk Land Assignment Committee]. (4) On receipt of application for the assignment of lands under clause (iii) of the proviso to sub-rule (3) of rule 5, the District Collector shall as far as may be, follow the procedure laid down in sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) and, if he is satisfied that it is in public interest so to do, he shall assign such excess lands as admissible under these rules.” 12. Rule 12A(i) specifies that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 12, the Government may constitute for each Taluk, a Committee called the Taluk Land Assignment Committee which may consist of officials and nonofficials, for advising the Tahsildar in regard to the assignment on registry of lands available for assignment (vide the Rule 11) for personal cultivation or house sites. Rule 12A deals with the Taluk Land Assignment Committee which reads thus: [12A.(i) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 12, the Government may constitute for each Taluk, a Committee called the Taluk Land Assignment Committee which may consist of officials and non-officials, for advising the Tahsildar in regard to the assignment on registry of lands available for assignment (vide Rule 11) for personal cultivation or house sites. (ii) The Taluk Land Assignment Committee shall ordinarily have the following members:- (1) One representative each of all the political parties who have representative(s) in the Legislative Assembly, (in case the State Committee of a party desires to change its nominee in any Taluk Committee, the State Committee may intimate the fact to the Government in writing, and the change shall accordingly be given effect to by the Government). (2) Members of Parliament/Members of Legislative Assembly representing the Taluk or any part of the Taluk. (2)(a) The President of the concerned Grama Panchayat and the Block Panchayat and the members representing the concerned area in the District Panchayat]. RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 9 (3) One Harijan member to be nominated by the Government. (4) The Tahsildar of the Taluk. (5) The Special Tahsildar or the Special Tahsildar for Assignment, if any, of the Taluk, (iii) The Tahsildar of the Taluk (or the Special Tahsildar for Assignment, if specifically ordered so by the District Collector in respect of any Committee) shall be the Convener of the Committee and shall preside over the meeting of the committee. (iv) Not less than [1/5] of the total number of members of the Committee shall constitute the quorum for the meeting of the committee. (v) The committee shall consider applications for assignment of land on registry for personal cultivation or house sites. Only those lands which are listed as available for assignment under Rule 11 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. shall come within the purview of the Committee. The Tahsildar shall place before the Committee all applications for registry of land of the aforesaid category, along with the relevant records of enquiry under Rule 12. After consideration of the application as also the records of enquiry, particularly, the objections or claims if any, the committee shall give their advice strictly according to the preference stated in the rules as to the persons to whom the particular lands may be assigned. The Committee will indicate the survey number, extent and such other particulars as are necessary to identify the lands proposed to be assigned in each case. The assignment of lands to institutions, companies, for commercial purposes and for schemes will be outside the purview of the Committee. (vi) The advice of the committee supported by not less than 3/4 of the members present shall be accepted and given effect to by the Tahsildar. In cases where the Committee fails to reach the decision as aforesaid with the required majority, the Tahsildar shall assign the land according to rules]. (via) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (iv), (v) and (vi), if at any meeting there is not sufficient number of members present to form the quorum, the Tahsildar or the Special Tahsildar, as the case may be, shall assign the lands, the applications for assignment of which were proposed to be placed before the Committee at that meeting, according to rules]. (vii) Provisions relating to appeals and revisions will apply to all cases of assignment resorted to on the advice of the Land Assignment Committee also. RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 10 (viii) The Committee shall have right to bring to the notice of the Tahsildar any case of assignment in the past to persons who are not eligible according to rules within a period of two years from the date of the final order assigning the land on registry. Such cases together with the records, if any, are to be placed before the Committee for its consideration, and if the Committee recommends cancellation of such assignment, the Tahsildar shall forward the records together with the recommendation of the Committee to the Board of Revenue for its decision. (ix) The members of the Committee shall not be given any travelling allowance or daily allowance in connection with their sittings]. 13. Therefore, the legal position with respect to the assignment of a land is very clear. It is explicit and evident from the provisions of the rules and the order rendered by the Lok Ayukta that the Taluk Land Assignment Committee has recommended assignment of the land in favour of Rukhia Beevi. It is clear from the order passed by the Lok Ayukta that the documents produced by Rukhia Beevi would prove that recommendations were made by the Committee after conducting due enquiry. 14. Learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the Lok Ayukta has not taken into account the requirement of the local Panchayat for public purpose. However, from the record of proceedings and from the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent in this writ petition along with the necessary documents that was produced before the Lok Ayukta, we are of the clear opinion that when the application for assignment was submitted by the respondent as early as on 19.7.1994, the President of the Panchayat has issued a communication stating that the request made by Rukhia Beevi is approved by the Panchayat and the Panchayat is not in requirement of 1 acre and 38 cents of the property occupied by RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 11 Rukhia Beevi and her family. Even Though a contention is raised by the learned Senior Government Pleader that the President of the Grama Panchayat has issued the letter in question without the approval of the Panchayat Committee, we are of the view that the letter written by the President of the Grama Panchayat was for and on behalf of the Grama Panchayat and which letter could not have been collaterally challenged by the Panchayat and the District Collector after several years from the issuance of the same. That apart, Rule 12A of the Rules 1964, was brought into force on and w.e.f 13.1.1969, makes it clear that the President of the concerned Grama Panchayat, the Block Panchayat and the members representing the concerned area in the District Panchayat were members of Taluk Land Assignment Committee apart from other officials of the State Government, Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly. Therefore, it can be seen that the said body constituted for conducting due enquiry and making recommendations for grant of assignment is a superior body than the President of the Grama Panchayat or the Grama Panchayat as such and therefore, when a recommendation is made by such a superior body, the Panchayat cannot later turn around and contend that the property was required for the purpose of the Grama Panchayat. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has also submitted that since recommendations were made by the Taluk Assignment Committee in which the representative of the District Collector is a member, the District Collector cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. We find force in the said contention also especially, RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 12 due to the fact that along with the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, a communication dated 1.1.2000 issued by the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram is produced written in vernacular language, making it clear that the District Collector has directed the Tahsildar, Neyyattinkara to forward necessary details with respect the property to be assigned to the first respondent along with sketch and mahazar for assignment. 16. Even Though learned senior Government Pleader has invited our attention to the Division Bench judgment of this court in Sudha Devi.K v. District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram and others [2017 (2) KHC 850], to canvas for the proposition that the Lok Ayukta has no power to decide an issue relating to a civil dispute, and that no positive directions much less of peremptory nature can be issued, we are of the view that the directions were rendered by the Division Bench of this court taking into account the fact situation therein on the basis of a dispute of a civil nature, which may not have much application and bearing to the issues involved in the case on hand, on the basis of clear cut rules guiding the issue, and the specific power enjoyed by the Lok Ayukta in the matter of maladministration. 17. Taking into account the aforesaid legal aspects, and the factual findings rendered by the Lok Ayukta, we are of the clear opinion that the conclusions arrived at by the Lok Ayukta with respect to the entitlement of Rukhia Beevi to get the land in question assigned in her favour, is unassailable in all respects, and that the Lok Ayukta has passed the said order bearing in mind the distinct provisions of the Act 1960 and the Rules 1964. It is true, the powers RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 13 conferred on the Lok Ayukta under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 is a recommendatory power, however the Lok Ayukta has issued directions to the State Government to assign the land in favour of Rukhia Beevi. In our considered opinion, merely because such a direction was issued by the Lok Ayukta that cannot be said to be bad for the reason that the Lok Ayukta has passed such a direction on the basis of the rule position in accordance with the provisions of Act, 1960 and Rules . To put it otherwise, the findings rendered by the Lok Ayukta are absolutely legal in nature and viewed so, it is not liable to be interfered with in any manner. We are also of the view that even if the findings rendered by the Lok Ayukta is to be treated as recommendatory, nothing prevents or detain this court to give effect and enforce the recommendation exercising the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in order to render justice to a person who is a victim of red tapism employed by the State Officials for the past more than two and a half decades in spite of her entitlement to get the property assigned. Whatever that be, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Lok Ayukta in view of the legal position discussed above. Needless to say the writ petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.” 6. Being aggrieved, instant review petition is filed by the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, writ petitioner, seeking for review of the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 5984 of 2011 dated 24.11.2021, _inter alia_ , on the ground that this Court has not considered the earlier application dated RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 14 10.04.1995, which is produced in the present review petition, wherein the 1[st] respondent has specifically stated that she is residing there and doing business. 7. In such circumstances, her application can only be considered as an application under Rule 6 of the Land Assignment Rules, 1964. This Court has considered the application of the 1[st] respondent as an application under Rule 5 of the Land Assignment Rules, 1964, which is incorrect, and the same is an error apparent on the judgment, and the same has to be corrected. 8. It is contended that this Court has found that the Taluk Land Assignment Committee is constituted under 12(A) of Land Assignment Rules, 1964, and the decision is valid and taken unanimously. In view of Annexure IV Government order dated 19.05.1997, there were no sufficient committee members in the Taluk Land Assignment Committee, to take a decision. The two persons, who participated in the Assignment Committee were Village Officers, who do not form part of the Taluk Assignment Committee. Hence, the decision taken cannot be considered as a valid decision. The findings of this Court that the decision is valid, is an apparent error and hence, liable to be reviewed. RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 15 9. It is further contended that the complainant has influenced the political representative and managed to secure the decision in her favour. The serious lapse committed by the Committee and the void ab initio nature of the order, have not been apprised before this Court in the earlier occasion. Hence, the recommendation of the Taluk Assignment Committee cannot be considered. 10. Documents relied on by the review petitioner are reproduced: (i) Complaint filed by Smt. Rukiya Beevi, residing at Kavinmoola veedu, Kulathummal Village, Neyyattinkara Taluk, before the Honourable District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram reads thus: Sir, I am in possession of 1 Acre 38 Cents of land comprised in Sy. No. 304/2 in Kulathummal Village which is being possessed by my great grand fathers and residing in houses constructed thereon. Now I am residing at the said land along with my husband and 7 children I am constantly approaching Government for getting Pattayam for the last 30 years. Now, government have issued orders to grant Pattayam in the said land. The said is in Secretariat LA department. But some jealous anti-social elements dislike it. (File No. B3-66007/94, Old file No: 83 7401/90, 12.05.90) We are doing business (making cotton mattress, pillow etc) in the said land after constructing a building for a living. Some jealous anti-social elements dislike it Hence it is requested that a truth finding personal enquiry may be conducted to ascertain the facts and pass necessary orders to assign the said land and to help my family. RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 16 10.4.95, Yours faithfully, Killi K. Rukhiya Beevi” (ii) Complaint submitted by the members of the Kattakada Panchayat Administrative Committee who have affixed signatures below: The letter bearing No. B3 66007/94 dated 24-11-1994 from your office (regarding assignment of land) placed before the Committee convened on 25-1-94 was not placed before the Committee for discussion and later while going through the letter, it is known that, the Panchayat has informed that out of 2 Acre 36 cents 'Kavu puramboke' land comprised in Sy No. 304/2 in Kulathummal Pakuthi, the Kattakkada Panchayat had no rights or liabilities over 1 Acre 38 Cents of land. However, (as per Revenue Records] 2 Acre 36 cents Kavu puramboke' land comprised in Sy No. 304/2 in Kulathummal Village, belongs to Kattakkada Panchayat Out of the said land it was decided that 5 cents of land was assigned to 5 poor persons for erecting dwelling huts. Even though the facts remains like this, the statement that the said land does not belong to Kattakkada Panchayat is illegal, malafide and for corruption. Against this, a Memorandum signed by majority of the members was placed before the Panchayat Committee held in 25-1-1995. After detailed discussions and explanations, the Committee has taken an unanimous decision not to assign the said land and to intimate the same to the concerned. Without including this decision in the Minutes of Panchayat Committee, and replying the letter from Honourable District Collector thereby committing wilful omission and gave all support to the concerned to take unlawful possession of the said land. Hence, it is most humbly submitted that you may directly enquire into the matter and to take stringent action against those who abduct public property. Obediently (Sd/-) RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 17 (iii) Letter by the Secretary, Kattakkada Panchayat dated 20.09.1995 to the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram. Sub: Kattakkada Panchayat Assignment of Puramboke land in Sy No. 304/2 of Kulathummal Village-regarding. - Ref:- 1. Letter No. B3-66007/94 dated 24-11-94 of the District Collector. 2. Resolution No. XXVII dated 07-08-1995 of Kattakkada Panchayat Committee. The Panchayat Committee resolution is submitted herewith for further action, since the Kattakkada Panchayat Committee as per Ref (2) cited has agreed to assign only that portion of land comprising the house in the eastern part of the road in Sy No. 304/2 of Kulathummal Village Kattakkada Panchayat and which is in the possession of Smt. Rukhiya Beevi of Rahima Manzil, Kavinmoola, Killi Yours faithfully (Sd/-) The Executive Officer Secretary (Special Grade) Kattakkada Panchayat” (iv) Government order dated 19.05.1997 issued by the Secretary to the Government, Revenue (P) Department, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram. “GOVERNMENT OF KERALA ## Abstract Land Assignment – Taluk Land Assignment Committee – RR reconstituted – Orders issued. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- REVENUE (P) DEPARTMENT G.O.(Ms.) No.350/97/RD Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 19.5.1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------Read:- G.O.MS. No.440/93/RD dated 24-9-1993. RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 18 ## **ORDER** In exercise of the powers conferred by the Government under Rule 12A of Kerala Land Assignment Rules as amended by G.O.(P) No.51/97/RD dated 28-1-1997 issued as S.R.O No.67/97 dated 28.1.1997 and in supersession of orders issued in the G.O. read above, Government are pleased to reconstitute Taluk Land Assignment Committee for all Taluk in the following pattern: - i) One representative each of all the Political parties having representation in the Legislative Assembly. - ii) M.Ps/M.L.As. Representing the Taluk or any part of the Taluk. - iii) One Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe member. - iv) The President of the concerned Grama Panchayat. - v) The President of the concerned Block Panchayat. - vi) The member representing the concerned area in the Dist. Panchayat. vii) The Taluk Tahsildar. - viii) Special Tahsildar for assignment, if any, of the Taluk. The District Collectors are directed to issue further orders. The representatives of the political parties and scheduled Caste/Scheduled tribe members to all the Taluk Land Assignment Committees under intimation to Government. The First meeting of the Taluk Land Assignment Committee will be held within a month. (By Order of the Governor) K. Mohandas, Secretary to Government.” 11. In addition to the above, Mr. S. Ranjith, learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that it is evident from Annexure-I application dated 10.04.1995 that the 1[st] respondent is residing there and RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 19 doing business, and in such circumstances, her application ought to have been considered under Rule 6, and it cannot be considered under Rule 5 of the Land Assignment Rules, 1964. ## 12. Refuting the averments and grounds in the review petition, 1[st] respondent herein submitted as under: - A. There is absolutely no error apparent on the face of record as alleged. All the grounds raised in the Review Petition are newly raised and never stated before the Lok Ayukta or before the writ court in W.P.(C) No.5984 of 2011. Moreover, the said additional facts and documents were already available and no reason is stated in the Petition for not advancing the same before. Therefore the same cannot now be raised at this distance of time and also because it is hit by the principles of constructive res-judicata. - B. It is further contended that the 1[st] respondent is a senior citizen aged 76 years and is suffering from various old age ailments. She was found to be entitled to get the assignment in her favour by the Lok Ayukta vide order dated 20.08.2010 and upon the confirmation granted by this Court through the impugned judgment. The belated Review Petition filed at this distance of time is only to harass her and cause delay in assigning the property as ordered by the Lok Ayukta and confirmed by this Court. In this regard, it is worthwhile to reproduce the relevant observation made by this Court in last para of the impugned judgment: "We are also of the view that even if the findings rendered by the Lok Ayukta is to be treated as recommendatory, nothing prevents or detains this court to give effect and enforce the recommendation exercising the powers conferred under 226 of the Constitution of Indian in order to render justice to a person who is a victim of red tapism employed by the State Officials for the past more than two and a half decades in spite of her entitlement to get the property assigned." RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 20 - C. The above Review Petition is totally against the letter and spirit of the judgment rendered by this Court, and therefore, to be dismissed in _limine_ on the above short ground alone. The Review Petition is liable to be dismissed, not only because it is merit less, but also for having suppressed following material facts occurred subsequent to the passage of the impugned judgment. - D. It is further submitted that upon confirmation of the order passed by Lok Ayukta by way of judgment dated 24.11.2021 of this Court, proceedings before Lok Ayukta was resumed vide order dated 02.02.2022 and the Forum posted the case to 06.04.2022 for filing the compliance report. A copy of the above order dated 02.02.2022 of the Lok Ayukta is produced as Annexure-R1(a). - E. Thereafter the Petitioner's Predecessor in office issued order No. B3-87597/07 dated 24.03.2022 accepting the above judgment of this Court impugned in this Petition and directed the Tahsildar, Kattakada (presently having jurisdiction over the relevant property) to assign the property in my favour in due compliance with the above order of Lok Ayukta and subsequent judgment of this Hon'ble Court upholding the same. A copy of the above order dated 24.03.2022 of the Former District Collector is produced as Annexure-R1(b). - F. The Tahsildar, Kattakada, despite receipt of above order issued by the District Collector, failed to take any steps to assign the property Thereafter, when the matter came up for consideration before the Lok Ayukta on 17.08.2022. Lok Ayukta found that the Tahsildar, in blatant violation of the above directions, disobeyed the orders of the District Collector and also that he is refusing to comply with the direction of the Lok Ayukta and this High Court. Consequently, the Lok Ayukta impleaded the above Tahasildar, Kattakada as Additional 6[th] Respondent in the complaint on her application and directed his personal appearance. The petitioner was also asked to appear in person, since he failed to file any compliance report. Copy of the order dated 17.08.2022 of the Lok Ayukta is produced as Annexure-R1(c). RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 21 - G. It was further contended that on 19.09.2022, the above Tahsildar along with one Mr. Saji Kumar, Deputy Collector, as representative of the petitioner appeared before the Lok Ayukta. But, the said Saji Kumar was unable to answer the queries of the Lok Ayukta satisfactorily and therefore the case was adjourned to 26.09.2022 for the appearance of the petitioner. - H. On 26.09.22, both the petitioner and Tahsildar were present in person before the Lok Ayukta with the connected files. The Lok Ayukta on perusal of the said files found out some shocking revelations, which were noted in the order passed by the Lok Ayukta on the said date. The relevant excerpts from the said order are reproduced hereunder: “2. Sri. Geromic George took charge as District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram only on 01 08.2022 The files relating to the present case was brought to his notice only on 27.08.2022. All the actions taken and letters written prior to 27.08.22 in the name of the District Collector were without his knowledge or approval. It was Sr. Saji Kumar, Deputy Collector(LR) who was taking the decisions and giving directions on behalf of the District Collector, without even seeking his approval or at least informing him about the proposed action. The only explanation offered by Sri. Saji Kumar is that he had been given oral direction by the former District Collector. 3. Prima facie, we are satisfied that there was deliberate attempt on the part of Sri.Saji Kumar, Deputy Collector (LR) and Sri.Nandakumaran, Tahsildar, Kattakada, to sabotage the direction of the Lok Ayukta and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No.5984 of 2011. They also defied the direction given in writing by the then District Collector pursuant to the judgment of the High Court. Finally, they succeeded in persuading the present District Collector, Sri.Geromic George to freeze the proceedings pursuant to the judgment of the High Court and the order of the former District Collector under the pretext that it is proposed to file a Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the High Court. 4. Prima facie, the conduct of Sri. Geromic George, District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, Sri. Saji Kumar, Deputy Collector (LR) and Sri.Nandakumaran, Tahsildar, Kattakada RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 22 amounts to contempt of the order of the High Court. Sri.Nandakumaran is prima facie guilty of insubordination and defiance of the order of the District Collector. 5. However, we notice that the present District Collector did not have an opportunity to study the files in depth before freezing the order of his predecessor. He probably did not realize the implications of freezing the order of his predecessor. Hence, we are inclined to give a reasonable time to the District Collector to have a fresh and independent examination of the case and to take appropriate decision in the matter. Post on 02.11.2022.” - I. The 1[st] respondent further contended that under the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached the Court with the above belated Review Petition, suppressing all the above facts, including Annexure-R1(b), earlier order of his predecessor, accepting the impugned judgment, in the Review Petition. The petition is nothing, but a clear abuse of process of the Court and liable to be deprecated, in strong terms. Copies of the above orders dated 19.09 2022 and 26.09.22 of the Lok Ayukta are produced as AnnexuresR1(d) and (e). - J. All the averments under the "Statement of facts" and "Grounds" in the Review Petition except those which are specifically admitted or dealt with herein are denied. As regards the averments in paragraphs 1 to 7 under the "Statement of facts" in the petition, it is submitted that the allegation contained in para 4 that this Court through the impugned judgment had only dealt with the "lack of jurisdiction of Lok Ayukta" to pass such orders is absolutely false. In addition to the above contention, this Court also had evaluated the merit/eligibility to get the assignment by specifically adverting to the rules contained in the relevant Land Assignment Rules, 1964 and the findings of Lok Ayukta on the relevant points, as can be seen from the impugned judgment. - K. The petitioner is fully aware that the 1[st] respondent has been representing before various authorities to get the assignment since 1990 and that the Annexure-I produced by the RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 23 petitioner along with the review is one among such representation and not her application for assignment as wrongly stated by the petitioner. In fact, the then Tahsildar vide Ext-P7 letter dated 22.02.2000, produced along with my complaint before the Lok Ayukta, directed the 1[st] respondent to file a fresh application in the prescribed format and accordingly, she has filed Ext.P8 application, which was later processed by the Tahsildar under the provisions of the Land Assignment Rules. - L. The present contention of the petitioner that Exhibit-P8 is not the application of the 1[st] respondent and it is Annexure-I dated 19.05 1995, is raised only to canvass a new objection stated in the Review Petition that if Annexure-I is treated as her application for assignment, then it falls under Rule 6 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, which speaks about assignment for beneficial enjoyment of residence and in that case the maximum extent that can be assigned is only 15 cents. This contention is absolutely absurd and baseless. Moreover, it was never raised before this Court in the writ petition, and therefore, cannot be brought in by way of Review to agitate this new issue as contemplated in Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. - M. It is my definite case in the complaint before the Lok Ayukta that the 1[st] respondent have been in possession of 1 acre 38 cents of property for more than 60 years in continuation of my predecessor in interest and that she has cultivated the entire land with coconut trees, rubber trees, tapioca, plantains and other various trees and that myself and her four children are residing in separate buildings constructed in the property. The fact of above cultivations and the existence of above residence are already admitted by the District Collector in his statement filed before the Hon'ble Lok Ayukta Therefore the above contention of the Petitioner that my application ought to have been considered under Rule 6 is absolutely unsustainable and liable to be rejected. A copy of the above statement filed by the District Collector before the Lok Ayukta is produced as Annexure-R1(f). RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 24 - O. Moreover, as evident from para 15 of the Lok Ayukta order, the Government Pleader had contended to consider the assignable extent as per Rule 6, which was rejected by the Lok Ayukta finding that my application is for land in my possession. The said finding was never challenged in the writ Petition and therefore cannot be now raised at this distance of time and that too by filing a review petition. - P. The next ground for review raised by the petitioner is with regard to the quorum of Taluk Land Assignment Committee which had allowed the application of respondent No.1 on 08.11.2000. According to the petitioner, the said Committee did not have the quorum, and therefore, there is no legality in the recommendation granted by the said committee. As regards the said contention also, the same was never raised by the petitioner either before Lok Ayukta or before this Court. In fact, the District Collector in his StatementAnnexure R1(f) before the Lok Ayukta has admitted the above recommendation passed by Committee and then, he had no case that the Committee was quorum-less. Moreover, a contention which was not raised earlier cannot be newly raised in the Review Petition, as categorically held by our Hon'ble Division Bench in V **ijayakumar v. Santhakumari and others** [2020 (3) KHC 233]. - Q. It is also pertinent to note that even if it is admitted for argument sake that the Committee was without quorum, that will not affect my eligibility to get the assignment, since the relevant provisions under the Kerala land Assignment Rules does not mandate the recommendation of the above committee as a pre-requisite criteria for getting the assignment Therefore, the above contention is also to be dismissed as merit less. - R. The last and final ground raised in para 16 of the Statement of facts is that the proposed land is required for road widening and that it is under the consideration of KIFBI and therefore cannot be assigned. This contention is absolutely misleading and incorrect. The relevant road passing through the relevant property is already having a width of 7 meter and that no proposal is made by KIFBI for any road widening as wrongly alleged. In fact, it is the finding of the RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 25 Tahsildar, Mr Nandakumaran, raised solely to deny assignment in my favour. He has raised this contention in the report filed before the Lok Ayukta on 03.09.2022, wherein, it is stated that he has found this information from a preliminary enquiry conducted in the site and not from any information received from KIFBI. The element of mischief is very evident that even misrepresentations are being made to deny a legal benefit to a senior citizen like me. The Review Petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed as unsustainable, merit less, and abuse of process. ## 13. Documents filed in support of the counter affidavit are reproduced: (i) Annexure-R1(a) order dated 2.2.2022 in Complaint No.2135/2007 passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta reads as under: ## **“ORDER** By order dated 20.8.2010, this Court had directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to assign the property mentioned in Ext.P8 application to the complainant, without any further delay. But, challenging the order of this Court, the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram filed W.P(C) No.5984 of 2011 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and obtained stay of all further proceedings. Therefore, by order dated 24.5.2019 the case was adjourned sine die allowing the parties to move this Court as and when the Writ Petition is disposed of. It is reported by the learned counsel for the complainant that the High Court has dismissed W.P(C) No.5984 of 2011 filed by the District Collector vide judgment dated 24.11.2021. In such circumstances, the District Collector is bound to comply with the order dated 20.8.2010 passed by this Court without any further delay. Post on 6.4.2022 for reporting compliance.” (ii) Annexure-R1(b) proceedings of the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram dated 24.03.2022 reads as under: RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 26 **==> picture [432 x 590] intentionally omitted <==** RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 27 **==> picture [429 x 595] intentionally omitted <==** RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 28 - (iii) Annexure R1(c) order of the Kerala Lok Ayukta dated 17.08.2022 in Complaint No.2135/2007 reads as under: ## **“ORDER** By order dated 20.8.2010, this Forum had directed respondents 1 and 2 to assign the property mentioned in Ext.P8 application to the complainant without any further delay. But challenging the order of this Forum, the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram filed W.P.(C) No.5984 of 2011 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and obtained stay of all further proceedings. Therefore, by order dated 24.5.2019, the case was adjourned sine die allowing the parties to move this Forum as and when the writ petition is disposed of. When the matter came up on 2[nd] February, 2022, learned counsel for the complainant reported that the Hon'ble High Court had dismissed the W.P.(C) No.5984 of 2011 filed by the District Collector vide judgment dated 24.11.2021. It was not disputed by the respondents. In such circumstances, this Forum observed that the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram is bound to comply with the order dated 20.8.2010 passed by this Forum without any further delay. The case stood adjourned to 6.4.2022 for reporting compliance. A copy of the order dated 2[nd] February, 2022 passed by this Forum communicated to the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram for information and compliance. 2. The District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram has not filed any compliance report. However, it is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the complainant that pursuant to the orders passed by this Forum and the Hon'ble High Court, the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram passed an order No.B3-87597/07 dated 24.3.2022, a copy of which has been placed on record. As per the said order dated 24.3.2022 the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram directed the Tahsildar, Kattakkada to assign the land in favour of the complainant. In spite of the said order dated 24.3.2022 of the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram the Tahsildar, Kattakkada has not taken any steps to assign the land in favour of the complainant. 3. From the facts stated above, it is clear that the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram had accepted and acted upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court which upheld the order dated RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 29 20.8.2010 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta. In order to comply with the direction of the Lok Ayukta, which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court, the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram by his order dated 24.3.2022 directed the Tahsildar, Kattakkada to take necessary steps to assign the land in favour of the complainant. But the Tahsildar, has disobeyed the order of the District Collector and he is refusing to comply with the direction of the Lok Ayukta and the Hon'ble High Court. It would appear that the District Collector is helpless and incapable of getting his own order implemented by his subordinate officer i.e., the Tahsilar, Kattakkada. In spite of the orders of the Lok Ayukta, the Hon'ble High Court and the District Collector, the Tahsildar, Kattakkada is daring to disobey the orders passed by his superior authority. It is nothing but insubordination and disobedience. It is a matter of shame for the District Collector. 4. The District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram has probably failed to file the compliance report due to the shameful situation faced by him. At any rate, the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram is statutorily bound to file a report before this Forum regarding the action taken by him in the matter, but he has failed to do so. 5. Hence, the 1[st] respondent District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram is directed to be personally present along with the connected files on 19.9.2022 to explain why the order passed by this Forum, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court, was not complied with so far. 6. The Addl. 6[th] respondent, Tahsildar, Kattakkada is also directed to be personally present along with the connected files on 19.9.2022 to explain why disciplinary action should not be recommended against him. Post on 19.9.2022. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the 1[st] respondent District Collector (in his name cover) and the Addl. 6 respondent Tahsildar, Kattakkada for information and compliance.” RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 30 - (iv) Annexure R1(d) order of the Kerala Lok Ayukta dated 19.09.2022 in Complaint No.2135/2007 reads as under: ## **“ORDER** In compliance with the order dated 17.08.2022, the additional 6[th] respondent Tahsildar, Kattakkada is personally present. However, the first respondent District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, who also was directed to be personally present along with the connected files is not personally present. He has not filed any application for exemption from personal appearance. Leamed Government Pleader Sri. Premjith Kumar submitted that the first respondent is busy with the law and order problems at Vizhinjam Port. 2. Though Sri. Sajikumar, Deputy Collector (LR) is present, he could not give satisfactory answers to our queries. It is for the first respondent District Collector to explain why the Tahsildar, Kattakkada refused to implement the order of the first respondent, how he condoned such defiance by a subordinate and whether the objections raised by the Tahsildar, Kattakkada are valid at this time in the light of the orders already passed by the Lok Ayukta, the Honourable High Court and the District Collector himself. It would appear that the first respondent did not apply his mind before acting upon the objections raised by the Tahsildar, Kattakkada. Hence, we deem it necessary to give one more opportunity to the first respondent District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram to personally appear and explain the position to us. 3. Therefore, we direct the first respondent District Collector to personally appear on 26.09.2022 at 2.30 pm to assist this Forum. The Additional 6[th] respondent Tahsildar, Kattakkada also shall be personally present on that day. 4. Post on 26.09.2022. 5. The Deputy Collector (LR), who is present before this Forum has undertaken to communicate this order to the first respondent District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram. However, the Registry may send a copy of this order to the first respondent District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram in his name cover.” RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 31 - (v) Annexure R1(e) order of the Kerala Lok Ayukta dated 26.09.2022 in Complaint No.2135/2007 reads as under: ## “ **ORDER** 1. In compliance with the order dated 19.9.2022, Sri.Geromic George, IAS., District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, Sri.S.L.Sajikumar, Deputy Collector (LR), Thiruvananthapuram and Sri.Nandakumaran, Tahsildar, Kattakkada are personally present along with the connected files. we have perused the files. 2. Sri.Geromic took charge as District Collector, Thiruvanathapuram only on 1.8.2022. The files relating to the present case was brought to his notice only on 27.8.2022. All the actions taken and letters written prior to 27.8.2022 in the name of the District Collector were without his knowledge or approval. It was Sri. Sajikumar, Deputy Collector (LR) who was taking the decisions and giving directions on behalf of the District Collector, without even seeking his approval or at least informing him about the proposed action. The only explanation offered by Sri.Sajikumar is that he had been given oral direction by the former District Collector. This explanation cannot be accepted. The files do not disclose any indication that such directions were given by the former District Collector. 3. Prima facie, we are satisfied that there was deliberate attempt on the part of Sri.Sajikumar, Deputy Collector (LR) and Sri.Nandakumaran, Tahsildar, Kattakkada, to sabotage the direction of the Lok Ayukta and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.P(C) No.5984 of 2011. They also defied the direction given in writing by the then District Collector pursuant to the judgment of the High Court. Finally, they succeeded in persuading the present District Collector, Sri. Geromic George to freeze the proceedings pursuant to the judgment of the High Court and the order of the former District Collector under the pretext that it is proposed to file a Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the High Court. 4. Prima facie, George, District Sri.Sajikumar, the conduct of Sri.Geromic Collector, Deputy Thiruvananthapuram, Collector Thiruvananthapuram and Sri.Nandakumaran, Tahsildar, Kattakkada amounts to contempt of the order of the High the order of the District Collector. RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 32 5. However, we notice that the present District Collector did not have an opportunity to study the files in depth before freezing the order of his predecessor. He probably did not realise the implications of freezing the order of his predecessor. Hence, we are inclined to give a reasonable time to the District Collector to have a fresh and independent examination of the case and to take appropriate decision in the matter. Post on 2.11.2022.” (vi) Statement of facts filed by the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, the petitioner herein, before the Lok Ayukta, in Complaint No.2135/07, reads as under: “The above complaint No.2135/07 has been filed by Smt. Rukhia Beevi, W/o. Late Muhammed Haneefa, Abdul Rahim Manzil Killi, Kulathummal Village, Neyyattinkara Taluk. The 2[nd] respondent is the Tahsildar NTA, and Third Respondent is the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department. The complaint has been filed against not issuing patta in respect to the property 50 Are 99 M2 comprised in Resurvey No.295/1 (Old Sy. No.304/2) of Kulathummal Village in favour of the complainant. As per the Village record, the land belongs to “Kavu Purampokku”. Steps had been taken in time by the Tahsildar, Neyyattinkara in response to the letter number B366007/94/L.Dis dated 30-5-2000 of the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram. 12(1) notice had been published in the land, and notice board of the Village Office, Panchayat Office and Taluk Office. No complaint had been raised by any one against assigning the above said laid in favour of the petitioner. Meanwhile, the president of the Grama Panchayat, Kattakada had requested to assign the land in favour of the petitioner through District Collector and the Government. Based on the decision No.II (12) dated 28.6.00 of committee, Grama Panchayat, Kattakada, the President requested not to assign the property to a private party. According to the president, two cases were pending against in Munsiff Court, Nedumangad (OS.326/96 & IA2545/96). In judgment dated 6..11.07, the Court declared that the suit was dismissed for default with cost since the plaintiff was absent. Hence the request of the complainant cannot be allowed as the consent of the Panchayat is required for assignment of RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 33 Government land to private parties. ## Para wise remarks shown below 1 to 4 : No remarks 5. (a) The Tahsildar, Neyyattinkara reported that the 50.99 Ares of property in old Sy. No.304/2 (Re-Sy. No.295/1) has been in possession of the complainant for 40 years, while the complainant claims it for more than sixty years. (b) As per the Tahsildar report, various kinds of trees are cultivated in the said property. In complaint, the complainant states that she and her four children are residing in separate building in the said property constructed by them. If so, assigning the total area of land to one person would be illegal. Moreover, 22 cents of land is in possession of her youngest son who is unmarried and handicapped. (c) Even though the President of the Grama Panchayat, Kattakada had recommended on 20-9-95 assigning the property in favour of the petitioner, the committee of the same Grama Panchayat had taken decision against assigning the said property. (Decision No.II(2) dated 28-6-2000). Hence the request for cannot be allowed as the consent of the Panchayat is required for assignment of Government land to private parties. (d) Before assigning a Government land the following steps has to be accomplished. (1) Furnishing Village officers enquiry report with Mahazar, Sketch, Proforma report; (2) Notification in 12(1) notice; (3) Taluk level inspection; (4) Consent of Taluk Land Assignment Committee; (5) Including an assignable list through District Collectorate; (6) Preparation of assignment order. Steps had been taken by the Tahsildar, Neyyattinkara in tune with the response of letter dated 1-1-2000 from District Collector. Thus, no delay had been occurred in this case. (e) Taluk level inspection and inclusion of the land in the assignable lists by the District Collector are important procedures in assignment process. These are not done so far. That is, assignment procedure is not completed. (f) Taluk Land Assignment Committee held on 8-11-2000, sanctioned the assignment application. Yet, Panchayat Committee decision was against assigning the property. RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 34 (g) Many steps has to be accomplished before assigning a Government land to a private party. The Department carried out each steps in proper time. Hence, there is no inordinate delay. (h) The complainant says, she uses various channels for getting patta. But the department can issue patta only after accomplishing each and every steps as stipulated in the Act & Rules. (i) Taluk level site inspection, inclusion of the survey number in assignable list, preparation of Assignment orders are further steps to be completed before assigning the property. Hence, the procedures are not mature for issuing patta. (j) On the part of the respondents each and every steps as per rules has to be completed before issuing patta. Issuing patta violating any of such rules shall be mal-administration. Hence, considering the decision of Grama Panchayat, Kattakkada No.II (12) dated 28-6-00 the second respondent informed the complainant that the said property cannot be assigned as the decision of Panchayat Committee is not favourable. In the above circumstances, the Hon'ble Lok Ayukta may be pleased to dismiss the complaint and issue order in favour of the respondents, based on the committee decision of Grama Panchayat, Kattakada. Sd/-District Collector” 14. To address the grounds raised in the review petition, at the risk of repetition, let us reproduce the contentions of the review petitioner before ## the Lok Ayukta as hereunder: “12. Learned Government Pleader submitted that as per Section 3 (2) of the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960 consent of the local body is an indispensable one and in this case Panchayat Committee has decided that the property should not be assigned to the petitioner and hence the petition is liable to be dismissed. Reliance was placed on Section 3 (2) which states that no Government land assignable for public purpose may be assigned under sub-section (1) without consulting the local authority as defined in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and if RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 35 such local authority required such land, for carrying out any of the functions assigned to it, Government may set apart such land for that purpose. From a reading of the Section it is clear that it refers only to Government land assignable for public purpose. As this is not a case of Government land assignable for public purpose it cannot be held that consent of the Panchayat is essential. That apart, Panchayat has already stated that they have no objection to the assignment of land to the petitioner. Ext. P2 letter sent by the President of the Panchayat unambiguously shows that the property in the possession of the petitioner may be assigned to her. 13. In the defence statement filed by respondents 4 and 5 they have no case that Ext. P2 letter was sent not based on requisite resolution to that effect by the then Panchayat Committee. So long as it is not so, it is beyond comprehension as to how the present stand is taken by the Panchayat that the property cannot be assigned and for that there is no proper explanation in the defence statement of respondents 4 and 5. Though it is stated in the defence statement of respondents 4 and 5 that the Panchayat never took any decision to assign the property to the petitioner it is indeed difficult to accept the belated stand as the Panchayat has not produced; any documentary evidence or any other material in support of the present stand. 15. Learned Government Pleader next contended that in view of Rule 6 of the Rules the extent of Government land that shall be registered in favour of a family as house site shall not exceed fifteen cents. Rule 4 applies only for assignment of government land for house site and for beneficial enjoyment. Petitioner's application is not for house site or beneficial enjoyment. As admittedly the petitioner resides in the house in the property her application can only be for assignment of the land in her possession as it is specifically stated that she is in possession of the property and that too since a long time (vide Ext.P8). 16. As the application filed by the petitioner has to be considered as one under Rule 5 of the Rules the question to be considered is how much extent of land can be assigned to such an applicant. Rule 5(1)(a), as it stands now, stipulates that the extent of land that shall be registered in favour of a single family for personal cultivation by members of the family shall not ordinarily exceed fifty cents in the case of unoccupied lands, whether wet or RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 36 dry, in the plains and not more than one acre of wet or dry land in hilly tract. Rule 5 (1)(b) states that in the case of lands held on lease, whether current or time expired or by way of encroachment not considered objectionable, the encroacher will be eligible for assignment of not more; than 50 cents of land, whether wet or dry, in the plains, and one acre of land, whether wet or dry in hilly tracts. Government Pleader therefore submitted that in any case assignment cannot exceed more than 50 cents.” ## 15. There is no such contention either before this Court or before the Lok Ayukta. It is a new fact, which is now sought to be introduced in the review petition. ## 16. From the material on record, the Chronology of Events, as ## summarised by the 1[st] respondent, are reproduced: |30-12-1961|The 1strespondent and her predecessors in interest where<br>in possession and enjoyment over 1.38 acres of<br>Government land in Old Sy no. 304/2 of Kulathunkal<br>village in Thiruvananthapuram District, for more than 70<br>years. It was by a Settlement Deed No. 5375/1961 of<br>SRO Kattakkada dated 30-12-1961 executed by her<br>father that the 1st Respondent got the property. The 1st<br>respondent and her children including a handicapped<br>child is living in the said property and eking out their<br>livelihood from the income derived from the property.<br>Predecessors had made valuable improvements in the<br>property and the 1strespondent was entitled to get<br>assignment of the aforesaid land in her favour as per the<br>Kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules.| |---|---| |13-03-1994|Since representations made to the Tahsildar and the<br>District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram were not<br>considered, the 1strespondent filed a petition before the<br>Revenue Minister on 13-3-1994 seeking assignment of<br>the land.| RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 37 |19-07-1994|The President of Kattakkada Grama Panchayat<br>recommends assignment of land to the 1strespondent by<br>order No. 528/1993 dated 19-7-1994.| |---|---| |13-09-1994|Secretary to the Department of Local Self Government<br>vide communication No. 16759/C1/94 dated 13/9/1994<br>intimating the Collector about the NOC granted by the<br>Panchayat for assignment of land to the 1strespondent.| |10-04-1995|A petition filed by the 1strespondent to the District<br>Collector seeking assignment of the land.| |27-06-1995|Communication made by the Secretary, Kattakkada<br>Gram Panchayat to the Revenue Minister stating the fact<br>that the land wherein 1strespondent and her family is<br>residing is no a land vested in the Panchayat and further<br>requested fo assigning the land to the 1strespondent.| |01-01-2000|Pursuant to a communication No. B3.66007/94/L.Dis<br>mad by the District Collector, to the Tahsildar to initiate<br>proposal for assignment of land, the Tahsildar directed<br>the 1strespondent to file proper application in the<br>prescribed form.| |22.02.2000|Petitioner filed the assignment application in proper<br>form, which was thereafter forwarded for further<br>proceedings to the Village Officer as per Rule 12 of the<br>Kerala Land Assignment Rules.| |30-05-2000|The Tahsildar issues notification under Rule 12(i)<br>seeking objection to the assignment, if any.| |16-10-2000|Report filed by the Village Officer to the Tahsildar<br>stating that there is no impediment in assigning the land.| |08-11-2000|The Taluk Land Assignment Committee by proceedings<br>dated 8-11-2000 approved the assignment of the property<br>to the 1strespondent and the Village Officer had<br>thereafter reported the value payable by the 1st<br>respondent towards the market value of the property.| |04-10-2007|Since thereafter the Tahsildar did not assign the land as<br>decided and approved bythe Taluk Land Assignment| RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 38 ||Committee, the 1strespondent was constrained to<br>approach the Kerala Lok Ayukta in Complaint No.<br>2135/2007.| |---|---| |20-08-2010|The Kerala Lok Ayukta by order dated 20-08-2010 after<br>the investigation, allowed the case file by the 1st<br>respondent.| |17-02-2011|The Kerala Lok Ayukta by order dated 20-08-2010 after<br>the investigation allowed the case file by the 1st<br>respondent.| ## 17. Giving due consideration to the material on record, we find that the Lok Ayukta, in complaint No.2135 of 2007, dated 20.08.2010, passed orders. When the same was assailed by the review petitioner, by filing W.P(C) No.5984 of 2011, grounds in the writ petition have been extensively considered and vide judgment dated 24.11.2021, writ petition has been dismissed. 18. Instant review petition is filed on new facts, not raised before the Lok Ayukta. We have considered the contents of the documents filed by the 1[st] respondent in the review petition and are of the view that they support her case. Decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent, also support her case. 19. Though Mr. S. Ranjith, learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that the communication issued by the President of the Grama RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 39 Panchayat, stating that the request made by the 1[st] respondent is approved but without the approval of the Panchayat Committee, we are of the view that the letter written by the President of the Grama Panchayat was for and on behalf of the Grama Panchayat and the said letter cannot be collaterally challenged by the Panchayat and the District Collector, after several years from the issuance of the same. 20. In Exhibit-P1 order dated 20.08.2010, Lok Ayukta has specifically recorded that the Panchayat has no objection to the assignment of land to the 1[st] respondent / complainant. Moreover, no contentions were raised before the Lok Ayukta stating that the President has acted unilaterally and the Panchayat has not taken any action to pass a resolution against the same. 21. It is also worthwhile to consider a few decisions on the aspect of review, as under: (i) In **Parsion Devi and Others** v. **Sumitri Devi and Others** [(1997) 8 SCC 715], relying on the decisions in _**Smt. Meera Bhanjia v. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Chowdhury**_ [AIR 1995 SC 455] and _**Abhiram Taleshwar Sharma v. Abhiram Pishak Shartna and Ors.**_ [(1979) 4 SCC 389], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: > "Under Order XLVII, Rule 1, CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia, if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII, RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 40 Rule 1, CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1, CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise." ## (ii) In **Kerala State Electricity Board** v. **Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. and Ors.** [(2005) 6 SCC 651], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “10.....In a review petition it is not open to this Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Learned Counsel for the Board at best sought to impress us that the correspondence exchanged between the parties did not support the conclusion reached by this Court. We are afraid such a submission cannot be permitted to be advanced in a review petition. The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court. If on appreciation of the evidence produced, the court records a finding of fact and reaches a conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. It has not been contended before us that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review Petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise.” (iii) In **State of West Bengal** v. **Kamal Sengupta** , [(2008) 8 SCC 612], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider what can be said to be mistake or error apparent on the face of record and held as under: "21. At this stage it is apposite to observe that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufcient ground for review _ex debito justitiae_ . Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court earlier. 22. The term “mistake or error apparent” by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 41 position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)( _f_ ) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision.” (emphasis supplied) (iv) In **Kamlesh Verma** v. **Mayawati and others** , [(2013) 8 SCC 320], while examining the scope of review, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “15. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.” ## 22. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that there is no ## need to review the impugned judgment. ## Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. **Sd/S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE** **Sd/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** Eb & krj ///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE RP. 934/2022 in WP(C).5984/2011 42 ## **`APPENDIX OF RP 934/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE I ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.04.1995 ALONG WITH THE TYPE WRITTEN TRANSLATED COPY. ``` ``` ANNEXURE IITRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE KATTAKADA PANCHAYATH ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE. ``` ``` ANNEXURE IIITRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BY THE SECRETARY, KATTAKADA PANCHAYATH DATED 20.09.1995 TO DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE IVTRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS)NO.350/97 DATED 19/05/97. ``` ``` RESPONDENT ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R1(A)TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2022 OF THE LOK AYUKTA IN COMPLAINT NO. 2135/2007 ANNEXURE R1(B)TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2022 OF THE FORMER DISTRICT COLLECTOR ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION ``` ``` ANNEXURE R1(C)TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2022 OF THE LOK AYUKTA ANNEXURE R1(D)TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2022 OF THE LOK AYUKTA ANNEXURE R1(E)TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.09.22 OF THE LOK AYUKTA ``` ``` ANNEXURE R1(F)TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTA ```