Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4535 OF 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil ) No.23266 of 2014)

Karunakaran                                    ..  Appellant(s)   

Versus

V. Padmini & Ors.               ..Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Leave granted.

2. 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.

3. 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).   The land which is the subject matter of  the present

Page 2

2

proceedings  was declared  to  be  surplus  land by  the  landlord.

Originally,  Respondent  No.1  filed  an  application  claiming

Kudikidappukars  (tenancy) rights  on  the  land.   This  claim  of

Respondent No.1 was rejected by the Board constituted under

the Act,  some time in the year 1988.  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:-

“96. Assignment of  lands by Land Board. (1)  The Land  Board  shall  assign  on  registry  subject  to  such conditions  and  restrictions  as  may  be  prescribed,  the lands  vested  in  the  Government  under  Section  86  or Section 87, as specified below:

(i) the  lands  in  which  there  are kudikidappukars  shall  be  assigned  to such kudikidappukars;

(ii) the remaining lands shall be assigned to –

(a)     landless agricultural labourers; and (b)     smallholders  and  other  landlords

who  are  not  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 notification in the Gazette.

Page 3

3

Explanation. – For the purposes of this sub-section-

(a)     a kudikidappukaran or the tenant of a kudiyiruppu shall be deemed to be a landless agricultural labourer if he does not possess any other land;

(b)     “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.

4. It  would  be  pertinent  to  mention  that  at  the  time  of

verification  of  the  assignment,  inspection  of  the  property  was

done.  It was found that from the year 1978 Respondent No.1,

along  with  her  family  had  been  residing  in  a  building  which

covered 6 cents out of  the total land measuring 8 cents.  The

remaining 2 cents of land was under a shed.  Therefore, only 6

cents was assigned in favour of Respondent No.1.  Thereafter, the

original landlord filed O.P. No. 311 of 1992 in the High Court of

Kerala claiming that since the land was admittedly covered by a

building, the same did not fall under purview of the Act.  The

Page 4

4

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.  During the pendency of the Writ

Appeal  the  original  landlord  stated  that  the  matter  had  been

settled out of  court and he did not want to continue with the

original  writ  petition  itself.   Therefore,  the  Division Bench set

aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and disposed of

the Writ Appeal on 07.09.1993.

5. 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.  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  not  entitled  to  the  assignment.  He,  accordingly,  sought

cancellation  of  the  assignment.   The  Collector,  vide  his  order

dated 22.08.2003 came to the conclusion 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.  

Page 5

5

6. 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 no power to recall the earlier order.  He further held

that even if there was some misstatement or misrepresentation

that did not amount to fraud and hence the order of assignment

could not be recalled.  Against this order the appellant filed a

Writ  Appeal  No.  1335 of  2013 which has been dismissed and

hence the present appeal.

7. 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 not the owner

since his father K.P. Choyi was still alive.  Therefore, the question

of  lease  being  executed  by  K.P.  Gopinathan did  not  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  not  arise;  (iii)  that  the

Respondent first claimed tenancy rights which were rejected and,

Page 6

6

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 not arise.

8. Para 4 of the Assignment Deed reads as follows :-

“4. This  assignment  is  liable  to  be  altered  or cancelled  if  it  is  found  that  it  was  obtained  by  false representation, mistaken facts or fraud.”

Bare  perusal  of  this  Clause  shows  that  if  the  assignment  is

obtained  by  false  representation,  mistaken  facts  or  fraud,  the

same is liable to be set aside.  We may also make reference to

Rule 29 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970 which

reads as follows :-

“29.  Conditions  and  restrictions  regarding assignment:-

xxx xxx xxx

(8) The assignment  of  any  land under  Section 96 shall be liable to be cancelled for contravention of any of the conditions or restrictions laid down in this rule and the land assigned shall be liable to be resumed by or at the instance of the authority which assigned the land as if such land is a land belonging to Government and in the unauthorised  occupation  of  the  person  then  in possession  or  occupation,  provided  that  no  such cancellation  shall  be  done  without  giving  the  party

Page 7

7

affected  thereby  a  reasonable  opportunity  of  being heard.”

This  provision also  envisages  that  an assignment  made  under

Section 96 is liable to be cancelled if there is contravention of any

of the conditions laid down in the Rules.

9. The  learned  Single  Judge  held  that  the  contraventions

pointed out  by  the  appellant/petitioner  did  not  fall  within  the

ambit  of  Rule  29(8).   This  finding was upheld by the Division

Bench.  Section 96 of the Act clearly envisages that assignment

can only be made in favour of landless agricultural labourers or

small  holders  and other  landlords.   In  this  case,  we  are  only

concerned with landless agricultural labourers.  Even if we were

to ignore the false claim set up by Respondent No.1 that she had

obtained the tenancy rights on this land from K.P. Gopinathan in

the year 1962, admittedly when she was only 10 years old and at

that time K.P. Gopinathan was not the owner of the property as

his father K.P. Choyi was still alive, yet we cannot ignore the fact

that in the year 1988 Respondent No.1 was having a valid licence

to  run  an  aluminium industry  and  was  employing  9  persons.

Therefore,  Respondent  No.1  cannot  claim  to  fall  under  the

category of  “landless agricultural  labourer”.  Therefore,  she had

Page 8

8

obtained  the  assignment  order  by  totally  mis-representing  the

facts and had played fraud on the authorities.  The law is well

settled that fraud vitiates all contracts or agreements.  This is a

case where fraud is writ large.  It is evident that assignment was

obtained  in  total  contravention  of  Section  96  of  the  Act  and,

therefore, Rule 29(8) was also applicable.  Hence, we are not in

agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench of the

High Court of Kerala.  Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.  The

judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench

are set aside and the writ petition of the appellant/petitioner is

allowed.   The  order  of  the  District  Collector  cancelling  the

Assignment Deed dated 22.08.2003 is restored.

...................................J. (MADAN B. LOKUR)

....................................J. (DEEPAK GUPTA)

New Delhi March  28, 2017

Page 9

9

ITEM NO.1A               COURT NO.5               SECTION XIA (For judgment)                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s)  for  Special  Leave  to  Appeal  (C)   No(s). 23266/2014 KARUNAKARAN                                      Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS V. PADMINI & ORS.                                Respondent(s) (With Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 28/03/2017 This petition was called on for  

pronouncement of judgment today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA For Petitioner(s) Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR                       For Respondent(s) Mr. Raghenth Basant, Adv.

Mr. Mishal Johari, Adv. Ms. Aanchal Tikmani, Adv. Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, AOR Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Deepak  Gupta  pronounced  the non-reportable judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur and His Lordship.

The  appeal  is  allowed  in  terms  of  the  signed non-reportable judgment.

(Meenakshi Kohli)                             (Sharda Kapoor) Court Master (SH)                            Court Master (NS)

[Signed non reportable judgment is placed on the file]