GEORGE PAUL Vs. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
LAWS(KER)-1978-10-35
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on October 27,1978

GEORGE PAUL Appellant
VERSUS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The petitioner is an assignee of land under the Wynad Colonisation Scheme Rules, 1969. These Rules are made under S.3 read with S.7 of the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960. An area of 1.42 acres was assigned to the petitioner on 16th December 1970 by order of the Administrative Officer in terms of R.7. Pattayam was issued to him on 19th January 1970. The assignment was however cancelled by order of the Administrative Officer dated 29th February 1972 (Ext. P-1). Ext. P-2 is the order of the District Collector rejecting an appeal against Ext. P-1. The petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue against Exts. P-1 and P-2. That was also rejected. These orders were challenged in revision before the Government, but the Government by Ext. P-3 rejected the revision application and confirmed Exts. P-1 and P-2 as well as the order of the Board of Revenue.
(2.) The reason mentioned in Ext. P-1 for cancellation of the assignment is that the petitioner did not disclose that an area of 88 cents forming part of the total area of 1.42 acres was covered by a lease granted by the Government in favour of the petitioner's father and the period of the lease had not run out. This is what the officer says in Ext. P-1: "...... he did not mention anything about the lease of the land in favour of his father ..... The action of Shri George was wrong representation of facts. ....'" In Ext. P-2 the District Collector gives a totally different reason. He says: "His arguments only indicate the efforts made by the appellant's father to get the lands assigned to his son so as to escape from the ceiling provisions of the K.L.R. Act." There was no whisper to that effect in Ext. P-1. In Ext. P-3 yet another reason is for the first time given by the Government. It says: "The alienation of the land to the petitioner by his father is not valid and the petitioner can therefore have no right upon the land which was leased out to his father for a specific purpose for a period of 12 years." I have extracted the reasons given in Exts. P-1 to P-3 only to show that as the case of the petitioner progressed from the Administrative Officer to the Government, the reason for the cancellation changed in character. The validity of the cancellation is challenged by the petitioner.
(3.) The only provision relied upon by the authorities for the cancellation of the assignment is rule (2), which reads: "13. Conditions of assignment.-.................................................................................................................................................... (2) The assignment on registry shall be liable to be cancelled for contravention of the provision in sub-r.(1A). An assignment on registry shall also be liable to be cancelled within a period of five years from the date of assignment if it is found that the assignment was grossly inequitable or was made under a mistake of fact or owing to wrong representation of facts or in excess of the limits of the powers delegated to the assigning authority or that there was an irregularity in the procedure for such assignment. ........................................................................................................................................................ The only part of the above provision relied on by the respondents is the portion underlined, viz., wrong representation of facts. The wrong representation of fact alleged to have been made by the petitioner is his omission to disclose the lease granted in favour of his father by the Government in respect of a portion of the total area assigned to him.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.