In Brief
The Supreme Court set aside a land assignment granted to a woman under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The land was assigned on the representation that she was a landless agricultural labourer eligible under Section 96. However, evidence showed she falsely claimed tenancy rights (initially rejected), was only 10 years old when she allegedly obtained the original lease, and was running an aluminium industry with 9 employees in 1988—making her ineligible. The Court held that the assignment was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation, and Rule 29(8) permitted cancellation. The fraudulent assignment was set aside and restoration ordered.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.