Cardamom Dreams Crushed | Kerala High Court Rejects Heirs' Century-Old Land Claim | No Enforceable Right Under Repealed 1935 Rules, Says Court As It Upholds Land Assignment Laws
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a representation for assignment of 99.61 acres of government land in Anaviratty Village, Devikulam Taluk. The Court upheld the decision of the State Government, finding that the petitioners had no enforceable legal right under the Cardamom Rules of 1935 and that their claim could not be sustained under the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960. Consequently, the Court found no ground to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition in its entirety.
The petitioners sought the quashing of an order dated 07.11.2018 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue (R) Department, which had rejected their representation for the assignment of 99.61 acres of government land situated in Survey Nos.229/1, 229/2, and 229/3 of Anaviratty Village in Devikulam Taluk, Idukki District. The land had originally been occupied by their predecessor, Ouseph Varkey, who initiated cardamom cultivation in the area.
The petitioners relied on a sequence of judicial and administrative developments beginning with a judgment dated 15.11.2013 in W.A. No. 2090 of 2004. They contended that their predecessor had applied for assignment of the land under the Cardamom Rules of 1935, submitting Forms and remitting the required fees. The appeal by Varkey before the Land Revenue Commissioner in 1939 resulted in a favourable order recommending assignment of 49 additional acres. They claimed that delays in implementing the assignment were due to administrative inaction, and submitted that the rights conferred under the 1935 Rules should still be honoured.
The petitioners' claim was supported by subsequent communications, including reports from the District Collector and the Secretary to the Board of Revenue, which indicated administrative lapses in executing the recommended assignment. They later filed W.P.(C) No. 39322 of 2017, which resulted in a judgment directing the Government to consider their representation.
Thereafter, the petitioners submitted a fresh representation on 14.09.2017, seeking assignment of the full 99.61 acres. The State Government considered the matter and rejected the claim through the impugned order, citing lack of statutory basis and adverse legal precedents. The petitioners then approached the High Court again through the present writ petition, also seeking a declaration of entitlement to the land and an injunction against assignment to third parties.
Additional respondents 5 to 8, residents of the Venkayappara tribal settlement, were impleaded by order dated 20.03.2024 and filed counter-affidavits opposing the relief sought by the petitioners. The respondents relied on earlier findings of the High Court and Supreme Court that had upheld the invalidity of claims made under the repealed Cardamom Rules.
The Court analysed the issue of whether any interference was warranted with the 07.11.2018 order rejecting the request for assignment. The Division Bench referred to its earlier judgment in W.A. No. 2090 of 2004, observing:
“The petitioners herein or their predecessor did not acquire any right under the Cardamom Rules of 1935 to claim a legal right capable of enforcement.”
It further recorded: “Though two applications for assignment of land were given by Sri. Ouseph Varkey, no orders were passed by the competent authority under the 1935 Rules enabling him to treat the said order as a concluded contract between the parties.”
The Court noted that the petitioners’ review petition (R.P. No. 50 of 2014) had also been dismissed. That order had clarified: “Despite the dismissal of the writ appeal, the appellants will be entitled to seek assignment of land under any other law in force, if they are legally entitled for the same.”
Referring to the petitioners’ subsequent representation made on 14.09.2017, the Bench stated: “A perusal of Ext.P4 representation dated 14.09.2017 would make it explicitly clear that the petitioners have not even mentioned any statutory provisions in support of their claim.”
The Court recorded established principles regarding the issuance of writs. Citing Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh, it stated: “A writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation.”
The Court also cited decisions in Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain, State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra, and Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI, affirming that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to compel authorities to act contrary to statutory provisions.
Summarising this legal position, the Court observed: “The direction contained in Ext.P5 judgment would not enable the petitioners herein to seek assignment of 99.61 Acres of land… contrary to the statutory provisions contained in the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960.”
On the applicable statutory framework, the Court noted that assignment must conform to the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. The Special Government Pleader stated Rule 1A(ii), which excludes lands used for cardamom, and Rule 5, which caps the maximum assignable extent.
Further, the Bench referred to the rulings in Varkey Abraham v. Secretary to Government and Hidayathulla v. State of Kerala, where it was held:
“The Act and Rules are not intended for enriching persons who hold extensive lands. Assignment on Registry of Government lands to such persons would defeat the very purpose of the Act and Rules.”
In the judgment, the Court referred to the contents of Ext.P7 order dated 07.11.2018, noting that during the course of arguments, the petitioners, who are siblings, had requested assignment of 99.61 acres of land in Survey Nos.229/1, 229/2, and 229/3 of Anaviratty Village in Devikulam Taluk under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964.
After examining Ext.P4 representation with reference to the provisions under the said Rules, the 4th respondent concluded that the petitioners were not legally entitled to assignment of the land and accordingly rejected their request through the impugned order.
The Court, taking into account the law laid down in the Division Bench judgment dated 15.11.2013 in W.A. No.2090 of 2004, the relevant statutory provisions, and the binding precedents cited, found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the 4th respondent.
It held that the petitioners were not entitled to any of the reliefs sought in the writ petition. The writ petition was therefore dismissed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: John Nellimala Sarai, Advocate
For the Respondents: A.V. Jojo, Advocate; A.X. Varghese, Advocate
For the State: Sri. M.H. Hanil Kumar, Special Government Pleader
Case Title: Vincy Cherian & Others v. The District Collector & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:16245
Case Number: WP(C) No. 26327 of 2021
Bench: Justice Anil K. Narendran, Justice Muralee Krishna S.
[Read/Download order]
