Kerala High Court Quashes Land Assignment Order Based On ‘Illegal’ Compromise; Protects Rights Of Pendente Lite Purchasers

The Court said that the Settlement Officer is duty bound in terms of Section 7(4) to pass an Order specifying the extent, survey number and other particulars of the land, together with the amount due to the land owner under Section 4 and the purchase price payable by the landholder under Section 6, for the purpose of assignment of the Service Inam lands to the landholder.

​The Bench of Justice C Jayachandran observed, “The contention that the said sale deeds were executed by a mistake would only add impetus to his sinister motive in entering into the compromise. There is no mistake, which is decipherable from Exts.P1 to P4 sale deeds. On the strength of this Court's finding that the 21st respondent was incompetent to enter into any compromise; that none of the applicants and their legal heirs in the three O.As had any pre-existing right over the 49 cents of land, so as to enable them to enter into a compromise; that the District Collector is duty bound to adjudicate the issue on merits as envisaged in Section 12 of the Service Inam Lands Act and in terms of the remand Order of this Court vide Ext.P44, it is hereby held that Ext.P47 Order of the District Collector, recording the compromise and allotting the properties to the applicants in the O.As, is illegal and the same will stand set aside. The Revisional Authority, the Board of Revenue, failed to address any of the above issues in issuing Ext.P55 Order and the same will also, consequently, stand set aside.”

Advocate Pirappancode V.S. Sudhir appeared for the Petitioners, while Senior Advocate Lakshmi Narayanan. R appeared for the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

Three original applications were filed under Section 5 seeking the assignment of the landholder's right before the District Collector. All three claimants claimed assignment of the landholder's right in respect of 49 cents of land in Survey no.1983 of Madathuvilakom Village. After several rounds of litigation, the said three applicants have allegedly settled the matter and filed a Compromise Petition before the Settlement Officer, accepting which, the Impugned Order was passed, in terms of the compromise. The Petitioners herein are persons who have purchased the rights of Gopalan Gopi, the 21st Respondent herein, pendente lite and who had participated in the litigation, which went upto the Supreme Court.

According to the Petitioners, the compromise entered into without the junction of the petitioners is fraudulent and collusive, besides being illegal, inasmuch as the 21st Respondent had no competence to enter into any compromise, after assigning his entire rights to the petitioners. On such premise, the Petitioners preferred revision before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, which, however, was rejected vide the Impugned Order.

Observation of the Court

The Court observed, “Going by the scheme of the Service Inam Lands Act, the vesting of the rights of the land owners in the Government is automatic with effect from the appointed day. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt on the fact that the subject 49 cents of land have vested with the Government by operation of Section 3 of the Service Inam Lands Act. The applicants in the three O.As can only seek assignment of the landholder's right, as envisaged in Section 5 of the Act, each of the applicants claiming possession as on the appointed day. Therefore, unless and until an assignment, as sought for in terms of Section 5 of the Act, has been allowed/made in favour of any of the applicants, the applicants will have no right, as such, over the subject service Inam land.”

In other words, the Court said that the applicants had no pre-existing right, so as to enable them to arrive at a compromise, contemplating allotment of specified extents to each of the applicants.

As regards the Impugned Order, the Court held, “Now, coming to the impugned Order vide Ext.P47 of the District Collector, which accepted the compromise, this Court may have to find that the same is also equally fallacious and illegal. The Settlement Officer has a duty cast on him, as per the Service Inam Lands Act, to pass an Order in terms of Section 7(4) of the Act, after considering the claims and objections and after making due enquiries, assigning the landholder's right to the applicants, or, for that matter, any of them in O.A Nos.76/1982, 640/1982 and 861/1982. Inasmuch as the matter stands remitted to the 1st respondent/District Collector by virtue of Ext.P44 judgment of the High Court, the 1st respondent/District Collector has an even duty to decide/adjudicate the issue in terms of the judgment of this Court.”

It was also noted that the party respondents had no pre-existing right over the 49 cents of land, so as to enter into a compromise, resulting in allotment of specified extents to each of the applicants in the three O.As. Secondly, it was ordered that when the sale of the rights of the 21st respondent over an extent of 37 cents (forming part of the subject 49 cents) is a fait accompli, it is no longer open for the 21st respondent to enter into a compromise, without the junction of the petitioners, the Court said.

The Court directed the District Collector to adjudicate the question of assignment claimed by the applicants in O.As on merits in terms of Ext.P44 Order passed by the Court.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition.

Cause Title: Manoj and Ors. v. The District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026: KER: 4115]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates Pirappancode V.S. Sudhir, Akash S., Girish Kumar M S, Srividya K, Richu Theresa Robert and Rajalakshmi. R.

Respondents: Senior Advocate Lakshmi Narayanan. R and Advocates R. Ranjanie, Ajith Krishnan, T. Rajasekharan Nair, Meera M and Selva Jyothy A.

Click here to read/download the Judgment