The constitutive issue in this case is regarding the cancellation of an order of assignment of an extent of 50 cents of land in favour of Smt Kadeeja, who is now no more and who is the mother of the petitioners herein. The assertion of the petitioners is that their mother had been assigned 50 cents of land through Ext.P1 order, but that it was illegally cancelled through Ext.P4 order dated 13.02.2009, holding that the property covered by Ext.P1 was not in the possession of the petitioners' mother Smt.Kadeeja, but in the possession of the Plantation Corporation Ltd., which is wholly on Government of Kerala Company.
2. The petitioners appear to have challenged Ext.P4 order, finally culminating in Ext.P7 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer wherein, the said Officer also said that the order of assignment evidenced through Ext.P1 was inequitable and made under mistake of facts, allegedly owing to the incorrect statements made by the petitioners herein. The petitioners W.P (C) No. 18951 of 2012 2 further challenged this order before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, which culminated in Ext.P8 order, wherein again the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer was affirmed, holding that the property in question was never under the possession of the assignee Smt.Khadeeja or her legal heirs,namely, the petitioners herein and that its possession had been handed over to the Plantation Corporation, several years prior to Ext.P1 assignment order.
3. The petitioners say that the above recorded statements in Exts.P4, P7 and P8 orders are factually incorrect and they rely on the information received from the Public Information Officer, Taluk Office, Kasaragode, to assert that the property in question was never in the possession of the Plantation Corporation, but exclusively with the persons shown therein as being in possession.
4. I have heard Sri Kodoth Sreedharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Official respondents.
5. As I have already noticed in the afore narration of facts, Exts.P4, P7 and P8 orders have been issued confirming the cancellation of Ext.P1 order broadly for two reasons. First is that, the 1st petitioner herein Sri. Mahmood is already in possession of W.P (C) No. 18951 of 2012 3 0.71 acres of land in Muliyar Village under another order of assignment. The second reason shown therein is that. the property in question, viz., 50 cents of land originally assigned to Smt.Khadeeja, was never in her possession, but with the Plantation Corporation and therefore that, Ext.P1 order was incorrectly issued.
6. Sri. Kodoth Sreedharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if it is assumed that Smt. Mahmood has another 71 cents of land in his possession, the cause shown by the petitioners herein cannot be jettisoned because this writ petition has been filed by his sister also, the daughter of Smt. Kadeeja and because the property originally assigned to his mother was heritable. As regards the second objection in the impugned orders, he says that Ext.P5 information, received by his client under the Right to Information Act, clearly shows that what is stated in Exts.P4, P7 and P8 orders, that the property was in possession of the Plantation Corporation at the time when Ext.P1 order was issued, is factually incorrect and untenable.
7. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of the Official respondents submits that since the 1st petitioner is already enjoying an assigned land, he cannot maintain this writ petition. W.P (C) No. 18951 of 2012 4 However, he concedes that there is nothing on record to show that the 2nd petitioner is in enjoyment of any such assignment, but assets that notwithstanding this, since the 1 st petitioner is conceded to be enjoying assignment of other lands, the original assignment in favour of Smt Kadeeja itself was, wrong, because according to him, such assignment of land could have been done only in the favour of the family. As regards the question whether the land in question belongs to the Plantation Corporation is concerned, the learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P5 information does not show so specifically and that the submission of the petitioners are not based on substantiated facts.
8. On a consideration of the submissions made as afore, I am of the view that, though the learned Government Pleader may be right in making his assertion as afore, it is still necessary for the Authorities to answer these issues specifically, since nowhere in Exts.P4, P7 and P8 orders are the contentions of the petitioners as recorded above answered specifically. Even the issue whether the original assignment of Smt Kadeeja, through Ext.P1, can be treated as improper merely on account of the assignment in favour of the 1st petitioner herein is one that should have gripped the attention of the Authorities specifically, while concluding the proceedings. W.P (C) No. 18951 of 2012 5 The orders impugned before me do not show that such consideration has been made. Further, I do not even see that Ext.P5 information has been looked into by the Authorities before the impugned orders have been issued.
In such circumstances, I am of the view that the Competent Authorities are obligated to re-consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of Ext.P5 and as decide afresh whether the cancellation of Ext.P1, on account of the alleged fact that the 1 st petitioner is in possession of other properties, can be found to be legally tenable. For this purpose and to pave way for a proper reconsideration, I set aside Exts. P7 and P8 orders and direct the Revenue Divisional Officer, to reconsider the claim of the petitioners, after affording an opportunity of being heard to them, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
I make it clear that the Revenue Divisional Officer, while making the reconsideration ordered herein, shall advert specifically to Ext.P5 information as also the contention of the learned Government Pleader that assignment of other lands in favour of one of the petitioners would be sufficient reason to cancel Ext.P1 order.
W.P (C) No. 18951 of 2012 6 This writ petition thus stands ordered.
Sd/-DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, Judge lsn