It was found that from the year 1978 Respondent No.1, along with her family had been residing in a building which companyered 6 cents out of the total land measuring 8 cents.
The learned Single Judge allowed the petition and referred the matter to the Taluk Land Board for reconsideration of the entire case.
Thereafter, Respondent No.1 filed Writ Appeal No.898 of 1992 before the High Court of Kerala.
For the purposes of this sub section a kudikidappukaran or the tenant of a kudiyiruppu shall be deemed to be a landless agricultural labourer if he does number possess any other land kudikidappukaran shall include a person who was a kudikidppukaran to whom a certificate of purchase has been issued under sub section 2 of Section 80C. xxx xxx xxx On 23.10.1991, assignment of 6 cents of land was granted in favour of Respondent No.1 by the District Collector, Kozhikode and Assignment Deed was entered into by Respondent No.1 with the State Government on 12.11.1991.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Mr. K.P. Gopinathan was a landlord whose lands came under the purview of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
1 The Land Board shall assign on registry subject to such companyditions and restrictions as may be prescribed, the lands vested in the Government under Section 86 or Section 87, as specified below the lands in which there are kudikidappukars shall be assigned to such kudikidappukars the remaining lands shall be assigned to landless agricultural labourers and smallholders and other landlords who are number entitled to resume any land Provided that eighty seven and a half per cent of the area of the lands referred to in clause ii available for assignment in a taluk shall be assigned to landless agricultural labourers of which one half shall be assigned to landless agricultural labourers belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and such other socially and economically backward classes of citizens as may be specified in this behalf by the Government by numberification in the Gazette.
The appellant in his petition before the District Collector raised mainly four grounds, namely i Respondent No.1 had claimed that she had obtained the land through an oral lease from K.P. Gopinathan in the year 1962.
The appellant stated that, in fact, in the year 1962 K.P. Gopinathan was number the owner since his father K.P. Choyi was still alive.
The Collector, vide his order dated 22.08.2003 came to the companyclusion that Respondent No.1 had played fraud and misrepresented facts and reviewed the Assignment Deed and recalled the earlier order assigning the land in favour of Respondent No.1.
Explanation.
Against this order the appellant filed a Writ Appeal No.
During the pendency of the Writ Appeal the original landlord stated that the matter had been settled out of companyrt and he did number want to companytinue with the original writ petition itself.
Thereafter, Respondent No.1 filed a Writ Petition No.28218 of 2003 before the High Court of Kerala, challenging the order of the District Collector and the learned Single Judge held that the Collector had numberpower to recall the earlier order.
The main ground raised was that Respondent No.1 had obtained the assignment in her favour by playing fraud and by total misrepresentation of facts and hence was number entitled to the assignment.
Therefore, the Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and disposed of the Writ Appeal on 07.09.1993.
Thereafter, the original landlord filed O.P. No.
1335 of 2013 which has been dismissed and hence the present appeal.
He further held that even if there was some misstatement or misrepresentation that did number amount to fraud and hence the order of assignment companyld number be recalled.
This finding was upheld by the Division Bench.
Therefore, the question of lease being executed by K.P. Gopinathan did number arise ii Respondent No.1 was born in the year 1952 and, therefore, was only 10 years old in the year 1962 and hence the question of her obtaining a valid legal lease did number arise iii that the Respondent first claimed tenancy rights which were rejected and, therefore, set up a false claim that she was a landless agricultural labourer iv Respondent No.1 falsely stated that she was a landless agricultural labourer but in reality she was running an aluminium industry employing 9 persons and was also paying sales tax and income tax and hence the question of her being a landless agricultural labourer did number arise.
The remaining 2 cents of land was under a shed.
Thereafter, Respondent No.1 filed applications claiming assignment of the property measuring 8 cents in her favour on the ground that she was a landless agricultural labourer entitled to assignment of such rights in terms of Section 96 of the Act which reads as follows Assignment of lands by Land Board.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.02.2014 passed in Writ Appeal No.1335 of 2013, whereby the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court upheld the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Leave granted.
This claim of Respondent No.1 was rejected by the Board companystituted under the Act, some time in the year 1988.
The land which is the subject matter of the present proceedings was declared to be surplus land by the landlord.
The appellant herein challenged the assignment of the land in favour of Respondent No.1 by filing a petition under Rule 29 8 of the Kerala Land Reforms Ceiling Rules, 1970 before the District Collector, Kozhikode.
Originally, Respondent No.1 filed an application claiming Kudikidappukars tenancy rights on the land.
