Compromise Without Pre-Existing Rights Invalid In Service Inam Land Proceedings; Statutory Authorities Must Adjudicate Claims: Kerala High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice C. Jayachandran set aside orders through which revenue authorities had accepted and recorded a private settlement splitting a parcel of Service Inam land among rival claimants and directed a fresh decision on the entitlement to assignment under the Kerala Service Inam Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1981. The Court held that persons asserting competing claims, without any pre-existing legal right over such lands—which are held under a tenure linked to specified services—cannot create a binding compromise among themselves to determine allotment. It further held that statutory authorities must independently adjudicate the claims and objections and cannot discharge that duty by merely acting on settlements. The District Collector was asked to decide the matter on merits within six months, after hearing affected parties, including transferees seeking impleadment.
The dispute arose from competing claims for assignment of landholder’s rights over 49 cents of Service Inam land situated in Madathuvilakom Village. Three separate original applications were filed under the Kerala Service Inam Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1981 by different claimants, each asserting possession as on the appointed day. One claimant subsequently obtained assignment and a purchase certificate, pursuant to which portions of the land were sold to third parties during the pendency of litigation.
Over the years, the matter travelled through multiple rounds before the Settlement Officer, the District Collector, the Board of Revenue, the High Court, and the Supreme Court, resulting in remands for fresh consideration. After remand, the original applicants entered into a compromise allocating specific extents among themselves. The District Collector accepted the compromise and issued orders assigning land accordingly.
Purchasers of a substantial portion of the land challenged these orders, contending that the compromise was entered into without their participation, despite the transfer of rights in their favour, and that the compromise itself was legally untenable under the statutory scheme. They sought interference with the orders accepting the compromise and the consequential revisional order affirming it.
The Court observed that under the statutory framework, “the vesting of the rights of the land owners in the Government is automatic with effect from the appointed day” and that “the applicants in the three O.As can only seek assignment of the landholder's right, as envisaged in Section 5 of the Act”. It was further recorded that “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”.
On the validity of the compromise, the Court stated 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” and concluded that “the compromise vide Ext.P48 has no legs in law”.
While examining the role of the District Collector, the Court observed that “the District Collector has a duty to pass an Order on the merits of the appeal, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties and after making such further enquiry as may be prescribed” and that this obligation “cannot be absolved, in the light of a Compromise Petition filed by the parties in the O.As, especially when such compromise itself is non est in law”.
Regarding the purchasers’ rights, the Court recorded that “the petitioners had reasonably ensured the title of the 21st respondent at the time when they purchased the above referred 37 cents” and that although the transaction was pendente lite, it remained “subject to the result of the pending litigation”. The Court further observed that a compromise entered into without the purchasers’ participation “cannot survive the test of law” and was liable to be treated as “fraudulent and collusive”.
It was also recorded that once the rights had been transferred, “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.”
The Court directed 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. Ext.P55 Order” passed by the Revisional Authority “will also, consequently, stand set aside.”
The 1st respondent/District Collector will adjudicate the question of assignment claimed by the applicants in O.As on merits in terms of Ext.P44 Order passed by this Court. The petitioners will have a right to seek impleadment in those proceedings, so as to safeguard their interests in the properties.”
“After affording necessary opportunity to the applicants in the O.As, as also, the petitioners herein and also in accord with the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ext.P5 common judgment, the 1st respondent/District Collector will take a call in the application for assignment on merits.”
Such adjudication shall be completed “expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment,” and that “the petitioners will produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent, for compliance.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. Pirappancode V.S. Sudhir, Advocate; Sri. Akash S., Advocate; Sri. Girish Kumar M.S., Advocate; Smt. Srividya K., Advocate; Smt. Richu Theresa Robert, Advocate; Smt. Rajalakshmi R., Advocate
For the Respondents: Smt. Devishri R., Government Pleader; Sri. Lakshmi Narayanan R., Senior Advocate; Smt. R. Renjanie, Advocate; Sri. Ajith Krishnan, Advocate; Sri. T. Rajasekharan Nair, Advocate; Smt. Meera M., Advocate; Smt. Selva Jyothy A., Advocate
Case Title: Manoj & Others v. District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram & Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: KER:4115
Case Number: WP(C) No.37457 of 2024
Bench: Justice C. Jayachandran
