Compromise Without Pre-Existing Rights Invalid In Service Inam Land Proceedings: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has recently held that the claimants who possess no pre-existing legal rights over Service Inam lands cannot enter into a binding compromise inter se, under the Kerala Service Inam Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1981. It has further held that the statutory authorities cannot abdicate their adjudicatory role by merely recording such settlements.

For context, Service Inam land are lands held under a tenure to which some specific service or obligation in the shape of personal labour or supply of provisions is attached.

Justice C Jayachandran delivered the judgement in a petition challenging a settlement order issued under Service Inam Lands Act.

The dispute stems from three original applications filed under Section 5 of the Act seeking assignment of landholder's right in respect of 49 cents of land before the District Collector. After several rounds of litigation, the three applicants have allegedly settled the matter and filed a Compromise Petition before the Settlement Officer, which was accepted by the Officer. This was later confirmed by the District Collector.

The petitioners in the present writ are persons who have purchased the rights of one Gopalan Gopi (respondent no. 21) , who is one of the applicants in the original applications filed under Section 5 of the Act. It was contended that the compromise entered into without the junction of the petitioners is fraudulent and collusive. It was further contended that the 21st respondent has no competence to enter into any compromise after assigning his right to the petitioners.

The Court emphasised the statutory scheme of the Service Inam Lands Act, particularly Sections 3 and 5. According to the sections, upon the appointed day, all right, title and interest in Service Inam lands vest absolutely in the Government, and any services or obligations attached to such lands stand abolished.

The Court observed that, unless and until an assignment, as sought for in terms of Section 5 of the Act, has been allowed or 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 applicants had no pre-existing right, so as to enable them to arrive at a compromise, contemplating allotment of specified extends to each of the applicants. The inevitable conclusion is that the compromise vide Ext.P48 has no legs in law.” Court noted.

The Court also addressed the role of the District Collector under Section 12 of the Act. According to Section 12 of the Act, any person aggrieved by an order of the Settlement Officer under Section 7 may appeal, appeal within thirty days, to the District Collector.

The Court noted 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. The Court observed that this duty of the District Collector cannot be absolved in the light of a compromise petition filed by the parties in the Original application.

The Court examined the allegations of fraud and collusion on the part of the party respondents. The Court noted that the petitioners have purchased the rights of the 21st respondent over an extent of 37 cents forming part of the subject property. The purchase was effected when the District Collector confirmed the Order of Settlement officer.

The Court noted that once an applicant had assigned his entire interest, even subject to lis pendens, he was incompetent to compromise claims affecting the transferred interest without involving the transferees.

“When the interest of the petitioners over 37 cents of land, forming part of the subject 49 cents, is demonstrably and ex facie made out, a compromise arrived at behind their back by the 21st respondent and legal representatives of the other two applicants in the three respective O.As cannot survive the test of law.” Court noted.

The Court noted that the compromise entered by the applicants in the original application can be characterised as fraudulent and collusive as the petitioners have already initiated proceedings to safeguard their right over their properties when the compromise was entered into.

“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.” Court held.

The matter has now been remitted to the District Collector for fresh adjudication strictly in accordance with the Act and earlier judicial directions.

The Court thus allowed the writ petition.

Case No: WP(C) 37457/ 2024

Case Title: Manoj and Ors. v The District Collector and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 59

Counsel for Petitioners: Pirappancode V S Sudhir, Akash S, Girish Kumar M S, Srividya K, Richu Theresa Robert, Rajalakshmi R

Counsel for Respondents: Lakshmi Narayanan R (Sr.), R Ranjanie, Ajith Krishnan, T Rajasekharan Nair, Meera M, Selva Jyothi A, Devishri R (GP)