EDAKKACHI THAMBAI Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARGOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a lady aged 78 years, who belongs to Scheduled Caste and is an agricultural labourer residing at Pilicode Harijan Colony. Earlier the petitioner and some others were assigned an extent of land coming to 3.5 acres each in Re.Sy.No. 343/1 of Panathadi Village, Hosdurg Taluk, Kasargod District, under the settlement scheme of the Prime Minister and assignment in this regard is said to have been made as per G.O.(MS).No.865/65/ Revenue dated 22.11.1965 (referred to in Ext.P -20) for implementation of the Centrally Sponsored Plan Scheme of Settlement to landless agricultural labourers in the Government land in the year 1965 -66. The beneficiaries were financed by the Government by granting Rs.1,000/ - each for reclamation of land and for settlement of expenses such as constructing home, digging of well, etc. It is averred that the petitioner was thus issued patta as per the above settlement scheme and she was paying basic tax also.

(2.) The petitioner had submitted Ext.P -12 representation dated 26.5.2015 before respondents 1 and 2 urging that her request for grant of assignment of alternate land as contemplated in Ext.P -1 G.O., should be expedited without any further delay. Since no further action was forthcoming, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing a Writ Petition (Civil) as W.P.(C).No. 21245/2015, which this Court had disposed of as per Ext.P -13 judgment on 22.7.2015 directing the 1st respondent herein (the District Collector, Kasargod) to take a considered decision thereon within a period of three months. Despite this direction of this Court, as no further action was forthcoming, the petitioner was again constrained to file a Contempt of Court Case, as C.C.C.No.1829/2015 before this Court and it was thereafter that the 1st respondent had disposed of Ext.P -12 representation by passing Ext.P -14 proceedings dated 14.12.2015 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The main grounds urged in Ext.P -14 rejection order by the 1st respondent are that the petitioner is now not a landless person as she has about four cents of in Pilicode Village and that she had not taken possession of the property given by the Government in 1965 as per the settlement scheme and that the property was trespassed by some others and that there is no provision of law to assign Government land to those who are having their own land, etc. The 1st respondent has referred to G.O(Ms.)No.280/2011/RD dated 27.7.2011 in support of their stand that a person, who is having some land, is not eligible for grant of assignment of Government land, etc. The petitioner was then constrained to approach the 4th respondent National Commission for Scheduled Caste and the 4th respondent Commission issued Ext.P -16 proceedings dated 22.6.2015 directing the 3rd respondent Principal Secretary to Government of Kerala in the Revenue Department to examine the grievances of the petitioner and to take appropriate action taking into account the grievances of such an aggrieved Scheduled Caste woman in the light of various Constitutional guarantees extended to such weaker sections and to submit action taken report thereon within 30 days and that if no proper reply thereto is submitted, the matter will be viewed seriously in terms of Art.338 of the Constitution of India. It is in the light of the aforestated facts and circumstances that the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by instituting the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers:

(3.) The 1st respondent has filed a statement dated 18.2.2016 in this case producing therewith as Anx.R -1(a), a copy of G.O(Ms.) No.280/11/RD dated 27.7.2011 referred to in the impugned Ext.P -14 rejection order dated 14.12.2015. It is stated that as per Anx.R -1(a) G.O(Ms.)No.280/11/RD dated 27.7.2011, it has been inter alia ordered that the land assignment on patta (registry) will be only to the landless and for self housing, etc. It is also stated in the said statement that the petitioner is now owing and possessing about four cents of land in Pilicode village and that therefore, she is ineligible for grant assignment in terms of the above said Government order. It is further stated that initially 3.5 acres of land in Panathady village was assigned to the petitioner in 1996 under the scheme for settlement of agricultural labourers and that later, the assignment was cancelled as per Ext.P -1 G.O. dated 30.7.1987 and the District Collector was directed by the Government to report whether these beneficiaries can be assigned alternate land available in the district. Very crucially it is clearly admitted even in the statement dated 18.1.2016 filed by the 1st respondent District Collector that the report on availability of alternate land (as directed in Ext.P -1 G.O.) has not yet been submitted to the Government. That during this period, the petitioner has neither taken possession of the land nor remitted the basic tax, etc. Essentially it is further averred therein that there is delay and laches on the part of the petitioner to put up her claim in the present writ proceedings. The provisions contained in the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, are also adverted to in para 4 of the said statement. It is in the light of these aspects that the 1st respondent seeks to justify the issuance of the impugned Ext.P -14 rejection order.