[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Asha P.Shetty vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2026
2026:KER:14761
W.P.(C). No.4019 of 2020
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 29TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 4019 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
ASHA P.SHETTY
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O.PADMANABHA SHETTY, KARUVELU HOUSE,
KURUDAPPADAVU, PAIVALIKE VILLAGE, UPPALA,
KASARAGODE DISTRICT-671 322.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.SASINDRAN
SHRI.SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,
LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695 001.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT,
PIN-671 121.
4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PAKKOM, KASARAGODE
DISTRICT-671 316.
2026:KER:14761
W.P.(C). No.4019 of 2020
:2:
5 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,
MANJESHWARAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 323.
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE PAIVALIKE VILALGE, MANJESHWARAM
TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 348.
7 GOPALASAPALYA,
S/O.THANIYASAPALYA, KURIYA HOUSE, PAIVALIKE
VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 322.
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SHRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO
SMT.N.SHOBHA
OTHER PRESENT:
GP -RIYAL DEVASSY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:14761
W.P.(C). No.4019 of 2020
:3:
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
W.P.(C) No.4019 of 2020
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P8
order and seeking a consequential declaration that the petitioner is
entitled for assignment of land as ordered by the 5 th respondent in
Ext.P4.
2. Originally, as per Ext.P1 order, an extent of 0.05 Acres of
land in R.S.No.114/1A 283 of Paivallike Village was assigned in
favour of the petitioner and patta was also issued as per Ext.P2.
The 7th respondent challenged the said order by way of an appeal
before the 4th respondent and the appellate authority set aside the
order of assignment and remitted the matter back to the assigning
authority for fresh consideration. Aggrieved by the same the
petitioner has preferred a revision before the 2 nd respondent and
the 2nd respondent disposed of the revision as per Ext.P3 order,
directing the assessing authority to re-consider the matter. Based
on the same, the 5th respondent conducted an enquiry and a site
inspection and passed Ext.P4 order assigning 0.03 ½ acres of land
out of 0.05 acres to the petitioner, taking into consideration the
2026:KER:14761
fact that a public well is situated in the remaining extent of the
property. The 7th respondent challenged the said order by filing an
appeal before the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent by Ext.P5
order, set aside the original order passed by the Tahsildar, against
which a revision was filed before the Land Revenue Commissioner,
which culminated in Ext.P6 order, directing reconsideration of the
matter by the Revenue Divisional Officer, after taking into
consideration the opinion of the Land Assignment Committee and
the report of the Tahsildar. Pursuant to Exts.P6, Ext.P7 order has
been issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer directing the
Tahsildar, the assigning authority, to consider the matter based on
the opinion of the Land Assignment Committee and also the report
of the Tahsildar. The 7th respondent being aggrieved by Ext.P7
order, filed a revision before the 2 nd respondent - Land Revenue
Commissioner and the 2 nd respondent by Ext.P8 order, cancelled
the patta issued by the assigning authority. It is aggrieved by the
same that the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The main reason stated in Ext.P8 for cancelling the patta is
that the petitioner's family had more than 3.70 acres of land and
further that the Land Assignment Committee has objected to
assignment of land to the petitioner. The petitioner would submit
2026:KER:14761
that he has applied under Rule 6 of the Kerala Land Assignment
Rules, which deals with 'Assignment of House site'. Rule 6
mandates that a family is entitled for assignment of land not
exceeding 15 cents and that the restriction of not assigning more
than one acre is applicable only in cases of assignment of land for
cultivation, as contemplated under Rule 5 . Further, the petitioner
would contend that Ext.R2(a) is the minutes of the Land
Assignment Committee, wherein the the proposal for assignment of
the land in favour of the petitioner has not been rejected, but they
have only adjourned the consideration of the said proposal. In the
light of the above, the contention of the petitioner is that no
interference ought to have made on Ext.P7 order passed by the
Revenue Divisional Officer, wherein he has only remitted back the
matter to the Tahsildar to take a decision in the matter, after
considering the opinion of the Land Assignment Committee and
also the report of the Tahsidar.
4. The learned Government Pleader, based on the statement
filed, submits that the petitioner's family is having a large extent of
property, of which 1.75 acres of land was assigned in favour of the
petitioner's husband and later, the said property has been sold and
therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for assignment of land as
2026:KER:14761
provided in Rule 6 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. Based on
the impugned order, it is also submitted by the learned
Government Pleader that there is a finding to the effect that the
petitioner does not satisfy the income criteria.
5. The 7th respondent has also filed a detailed counter
affidavit, wherein it is stated that the petitioner's family is in
ownership and possession of a large extent of land and therefore,
there is no point in saying that the petitioner has no property for
constructing a house. It is further stated that the husband of the
petitioner is having a commercial building and therefore, they are
not entitled for assignment of land, which is essentially meant for
landless persons and not to the persons like the petitioner. The
learned counsel for the 7th respondent also submits that the land
cannot be assigned to the petitioner, taking into consideration the
lie of the property.
6. I have considered the rival contentions on both sides.
7. Ext.P7 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer did
not conclusively decide on the entitlement of the petitioner for
assignment of the land, but only relegated the matter to the
Tahsildar, who have to look into the matter, especially the report of
the Land Assignment Committee and the report of the Tahsildar
2026:KER:14761
and take a decision in the matter, which has been interfered by
Ext.P8 order. Interestingly, a perusal of Ext. R2(a) report of the
Land Assignment Committee would reveal that no decision has
been taken by the Land Assignment Committee in respect of the
assignment of land to the petitioner and the said proposal has been
adjourned for further consideration.
8. Therefore, since there is no decision by the Land
Assignment Committee constituted as per Rule 12A of the Kerala
Land Assignment Rules, a Committee constituted for advising the
Tahsildar in regard to the assignment on registry of lands available
for assignment, I am of the view that the revisional authority ought
not have interfered with Ext.P7 order, when there is no finding by
the said appellate authority on the entitlement of the petitioner for
assignment of land, but only relegated the matter to the Tahsildar
to take a decision, taking into consideration the decision of the
Land Assignment Committee and other reports in this regard.
Accordingly, Ext.P8 is set aside. Consequently, there will be a
direction to the 5th respondent Tahsildar to reconsider the matter
as directed in Ext.P7 order, after affording an opportunity of being
heard to the petitioner and the 7 th respondent. The 5th respondent
Tahsildar shall take a decision in the matter strictly in accordance
2026:KER:14761
with the Land Assignment Act and Rules and based on the
recommendations of the Taluk Land Assignment Committee as
provided in Rule 12A of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules and also
the impact of Rule 11, which deals with preparation of list of
assignable land and Rule 7 of the Land Assignment Rules.
Petitioner as well as the 7 th respondent will be free to submit their
notes of arguments which shall be duly considered by the 5 th
respondent while passing orders as directed above. Till a decision
is taken as directed above, the status quo as regards the subject
property shall be maintained.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sm/
2026:KER:14761
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 4019 OF 2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN LA
NO.153/97/PAIVALIKE DATED 08.12.2000
PASSED BY TAHSILDAR, KASARAGOD.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA DATED
20.08.2001, LA NO.153/97 OF PAIVALIKE
ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.09.2012
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.05.2015
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.08.2016
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2017
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2019
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.12.2019
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
