Radha Viswanathan Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Radha Viswanathan Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Ext.P6 set aside; matter remanded to the Government for fresh consideration with direction to pass fresh orders including proper reasons for any rejection.

Issue for consideration

Whether an assignment made immediately after the death of the assignee can be claimed by the legal heirs of the deceased assignee.

Court's answer

No proper reason was provided in Ext.P6 for rejecting the petitioner's application; the many contentions raised in the counter affidavit regarding non-assignment did not find place in the impugned order, so the rejection order cannot stand as passed.

Ratio / Principle

The Court set aside Ext.P6 and remanded the matter to the Government for fresh consideration, directing that if the petitioner is found not entitled, a detailed order containing the reasons for such non-entitlement shall be passed.

Key takeaways

It is an admitted fact that the amount sought as per Ext.P1 was not paid, since the assignee expired ten days prior to the order of assignment; the substantive question of the legal heirs' entitlement was left to be determined afresh on remand.obiter¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Kerala HC (Ernakulam), WP(C) No.24073 of 2013, Radha Viswanathan v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2025:KER:23583), P.M. Manoj J., 19-03-2025: Petitioner, daughter-in-law of prospective assignee Kalyani Amma, challenged Ext.P6 (Order No.63725/A3/10/REV dt. 10/03/2011 of the 1st respondent) rejecting her application for assignment of 0.40.47 Ha (34.81 Ares) in Survey No.1689/2, Puthuvype Village. Ext.P1 (Land Assignment Order No.57/81 dt. 31/07/1986) issued under Rule 9(1), Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, came ten days after the assignee's death (22.07.1986); Rule 9(2)/9(7) formalities and payment were never completed; the son's application (LA CER 8844/94) lapsed on his death (10.10.2007). Finding that Ext.P6 gave no proper reason and that counter-affidavit contentions found no place in the order, and relying on Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405, the Court set aside Ext.P6 and remanded to the Government for fresh, reasoned consideration. Writ petition disposed of.

2025:KER:23583

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 28TH PHALGUNA,

WP(C) NO. 24073 OF 2013

PETITIONER:

RADHA VISWANATHAN

W/O. LATE K.R. VISWANATHAN, AGED 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT RADHA NIVAS, MADIRAPALLY, KOTAHAMANGALAM - 686 691, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM

RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT ANNEX, TRIVANDRUM -695 001.

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 682 030.

3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT COCHIN, COCHIN - 682 001.

4 TAHAZILDAR TALUK OFFICE, COCHIN - 682 001.

5 VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, PUTHUVYPE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 508.

BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SMT.RASHMI.K.M,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

WP(C)No.24073/2013

2025:KER:23583

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 19.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)No.24073/2013

2025:KER:23583

J U D G M E N T

(Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2025)

The writ petition is preferred by the daughter in law of the assignee in Ext.P1, being aggrieved by the rejection of her application for the assignment of land which was originally assigned in the name of her Mother-in-Law, Kalyani Amma. But prior to the completion of assignment, she expired. Thereafter, her son, the husband of the petitioner applied for the same, but it was also not completed due to the failure to follow the procedure as contemplated under the Rules. In the meanwhile, her husband, the son of the original assignee was also expired. Now the petitioner has come up with the contention that, she is entitled for the assignment of the land which was proposed to be assigned to Kalyani Amma as per Ext.P1.

It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner’s late Mother-in-Law, kalyani Amma was a cultivating tenant in the property having an extent of 0.40.47 Hectares (34.81 Ares) comprised in Survey No.1689/2 of Puthuvype Village, Cochin Taluk. Accordingly, the petitioner’s late Mother-in-Law

submitted an application for assignment of the land as per application No.LA No.57/81. Thereafter, prior to completing

WP(C)No.24073/2013

2025:KER:23583

the formalities as per Rule 9, the assignee expired on 22.07.1986, i.e., ten days prior to issuance of Ext.P1.

Under such circumstances, her sole son, K.R Viswanathan submitted LA CER 8844/94 application for getting pattayam for this property in his name, being the sole survivor of the assignee. However, at the time of demise of the assignee, the petitioner’s husband was in Indian Military Service. On receipt of the said application, the Village Officer inspected the property and submitted report dated 08.11.1994. On considering the said report, the 4^th respondent, Tahsildar intimated the petitioner’s husband to give consent and no objection in paying the existing market price as per Ext.P2. Since the said direction was not amenable to the petitioner’s husband, he has preferred various representations before various Authorities as per Exts.P3 to P5. During the pendency of those representations, Sri.Viswanathan also expired on 10.10.2007. Therefore, no further proceedings were taken on the representation preferred by late husband of the petitioner.

Under such circumstances, being the legal heir of the deceased Viswanathan, it is contended by the petitioner that, the assigned property should devolve upon herself and her sons- Manoj and Mahesh and daughter Mini. Accordingly,

WP(C)No.24073/2013

2025:KER:23583

the petitioner had preferred a separate application for effecting the assignment as per Ext.P1 in her name. By Ext.P6 letter, her application for assignment of the property pertaining to Ext.P1 has been rejected for the reason that, she is already having 97 cents of property in her name. More over, the property in question is required for the LNG terminal, development of National Highway, etc.

According to the petitioner, the said order is not sustainable since once the assignment order has been issued as per Ext.P1, what remains is the completion of the formalities as per Rule 9 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rule, 1964. Here what remains is that, as per Rule 9(1) in appendix 1, an order has been issued and the assignee was directed to pay certain amount. Ten days prior to the same, the assignee expired. Thereby, naturally, the officials should have issued a notice to the legal heirs to remit the amount for completion of the formalities, which has not been done.

In response to the contentions, learned Government Pleader submitted that, the assignment has not been completed as contemplated under Rule 1. Going by the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules,1964 the “assignee” is defined under Rule 2(b) which says ‘ a person to whom land is assigned under these rules and includes his

WP(C)No.24073/2013

2025:KER:23583

6 heirs or successors in interest’ and Rule 2(c) defines the “assignment” which says ‘transfer of land by way of registry and includes a lease and a grant of licence for the use of the land’ and Rule 2(d) defines “the family” which ‘includes a person, his wife or her husband, their children living with or dependent on them and also the parents who are solely dependent on such person’. The formalities of assignment should be completed as per Rule 9(1), Rule 9(2) and Rule 9(7). In the case on hand, though the order under Rule 9(1) is issued, further proceedings as per Rule 9(2) was not completed and Rule 2(7) also was not completed. Therefore, assignment itself is not complete.

It is further stated that, the son of the assignee had submitted a separate application, which was not intended for rescuing the process that culminated in Ext.P1 after the demise of the original assignee. Even after the death of the sole legal heir of the assignee, the wife of the son of the assignee has approached the authorities. However, on considering her application, the authorities found that she was in possession of another extent of land, and the property in question was required for another government purpose.

WP(C)No.24073/2013

2025:KER:23583

I have heard Sri. Peeyus A Kottam, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt.K.M Rashmi, the leaned Government Pleader for the respondents.

The issues involved in this case revolves around the sole question whether an assignment made immediately after the death of the assignee can be claimed by the legal heirs of the deceased assignee. As per Ext.P1, the order of assignment was issued under Rule 9(1) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. As per Rule 9(2), if the process is completed, the ‘Patta’ should be issued in Appendix II, i.e., after the survey and demarcation of the property are carried out. On the other hand, Rule 9(7) says, if the assignee does not remit the land value and arrears of tax due and other charges within three months from the date of sanctioning, the registry shall cancel the assignment. The occupancy evicted, the land resumed and re assigned to other eligible families. The patta for the land shall be issued only after the entire amount is paid within three months. Here it is an admitted fact that, the amount sought as per Ext.P1 has not been paid since the assignee expired ten days prior to the order of assignment as per Ext.P1.

At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that neither the petitioner nor the respondent has a case stating

WP(C)No.24073/2013

2025:KER:23583

8 that, the petitioner or husband attempted to pay the amount as per Ext.P1. Now, the respondent has issued a notice due to the failure of the assignee to pay the amount. Going by the records it appears that a separate application has been filed, as evident from Ext.P2, by the sole legal heir, who is the son of the assignee and the late husband of the petitioner. It was on considering his application preferred by the late husband of the petitioner. On considering such application, an intimation has been given to him wherein it is stated that, being an employed person, he will have to remit the market value of the property. However, he was not amenable to such conditions and he has preferred many representations as evident from Exts.P2 to P5. During the period of consideration of those representations, he also expired. Therefore, the petitioner, claiming to be the legal heir of both the deceased son of the assignee and the deceased assignee, approached the authorities by submitting an application dated 28.10.2010. This application was rejected as per Ext.P6.

Upon evaluating the order, it appears that no proper reason was provided for its rejection. However, too many contentions are raised in the counter affidavit with respect to the reasons for non assigning the land to the

WP(C)No.24073/2013

2025:KER:23583

9 applicant and those contentions not found place in the impugned order. This position is settled way back in 1978 by the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and Another v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others [(1978)1 SCC 405] , wherein it was held that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise.

Under such circumstances, I prefer to set aside Ext.P6 and remand the matter back to the Government for fresh consideration. If it is found that the petitioner is not entitled, a detailed order shall be passed, containing reasons for such non-entitlement. Accordingly, fresh orders shall be passed, and the proper reasons for such rejection shall be included in the order.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/- P.M. MANOJ JUDGE

AKH

WP(C)No.24073/2013

2025:KER:23583

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24073/2013

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT-P1TRUE COPY OF THE LAND ASSIGNMENT
ORDER NO. 57/81 DATED 31/07/1986
ISSUED BY THE TAHZILDAR, TALUK
OFFICE, COCHIN TO UPPIDAMKUZHI
KALYANI AMMA.

EXHIBIT-P2TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. C4-
13567/94 DATED 06/12/1994 ISSUED BY
TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, COCHIN TO
LATE K.R. VISWANATHAN, PETITIONER'S
HUSBAND.

EXHIBIT-P3TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
11/11/1994 SUBMITTED BY LATER K.R.
VISWANATHAN TO THE FORMER CHIEF
MINISTER OF KERALA

EXHIBIT-P4TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
22/01/2007 SUBMITTED BY LATE K.R.
VISWANATHAN BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT-P5TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
28/10/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER AND HER CHILDREN BEFORE
THE RESPONDENTS.

EXHIBIT-P6TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
63725/A3/10/REV. DATED 10/03/2011
ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Ext.P6 - Order No. 63725/A3/10/REV dated 10/03/2011 issued by the first respondent rejecting the petitioner's application for assignment of the land pertaining to Ext.P1, on the stated grounds that she already holds 97 cents of property and the land is required for the LNG terminal, National Highway development, etc.¶40
First respondent - State of Kerala, Department of Revenue (Government Secretariat) · 10/03/2011
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's late mother-in-law Kalyani Amma, cultivating tenant of 0.40.47 Hectares (34.81 Ares) in Survey No.1689/2 of Puthuvype Village, Cochin Taluk, submitted application No.LA No.57/81 for assignment of the land.¶30
Prior proceeding
Land Assignment Order No. 57/81 dated 31/07/1986 (Ext.P1) issued by the Tahzildar, Taluk Office, Cochin to Uppidamkuzhi Kalyani Amma.¶69
Prior proceeding
Assignee Kalyani Amma expired on 22.07.1986, ten days before issuance of Ext.P1, before the Rule 9 formalities were completed.¶34
Prior proceeding
Her sole son K.R. Viswanathan submitted application LA CER 8844/94 for getting pattayam for the property in his name, being the sole survivor of the assignee.¶35
Prior proceeding
On receipt of the application, the Village Officer inspected the property and submitted report dated 08.11.1994.¶35
Prior proceeding
The 4th respondent Tahsildar intimated the petitioner's husband to give consent and no objection to paying the existing market price as per Ext.P2; finding the direction unacceptable, he preferred representations Exts.P3 to P5 before various authorities.¶35
Prior proceeding
During the pendency of those representations, K.R. Viswanathan expired on 10.10.2007 and no further proceedings were taken on his representations.¶35
Prior proceeding
The petitioner, claiming to be legal heir of both the deceased son of the assignee and the deceased assignee, approached the authorities with an application dated 28.10.2010, which was rejected as per Ext.P6.¶55