Judgment :- 1. The Tahsildar, Karunagappally had taken possession of an extent of 13 cents of land comprised in Sy. No. 9567 of Thodiyoor Village as excess land belonging to one Unnikrishna Pillai as ordered by the Taluk Land Board. This land was assigned as per the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules to one Chandrasekharan Nair of Kidangoor Veedu. According to the petitioner, the land that was resumed from Unnikrishna Pillai belonged to the tarwad of Unnikrishna Pillai and Petitioner. That was the seat of the tarwad diety and a'Sarpakavu'. Though in the partition the land had been assigned to Unnikrishna Pillai, it had been the place of worship of the members of the tarwad. 2. The surrender and assignment of the land in accordance with the Kerala Land Reforms Act roused the sentiments of the members of the tarwad and apprehension prevailed among them that tampering with the 'Sarpakavu' and family diety might affect adversely the members of the tarwad. Therefore the petitioner prevailed upon the assignee, Chandrasekharn Nair, to sell this piece of land so that he could preserve the 'Sarpakavu' and family diety. Chandrasekharan Nair readily agreed to sell the land, as the land was unfit for residential purposes. On 31-5-1979 Chandrasekharan Nair sold the land to the petitioner and he purchased on the same day another land with the consideration obtained by the sale of the property assigned to him. Petitioner and the members of the tarwad continued to use the land as a place of worship. He has approached this court as he was made aware of an order passed by the District Collector, Quilon-Ist respondent herein-cancelling the assignment in favour of Chandrasekharan Nair on the ground that the assigned land has been alienated in contravention of the Rules. Ext. P1 is a copy of the order which is challenged in this writ petition It would appear from Ext. P1 that though Chandrasekharan Nair was given a show cause notice before cancellation, there was no notice to the petitioner, subsequent assignee of Chandrasekharan Nair, before the impugned order was passed. 3. The challenge to Ext. P1 is on two grounds. The Collector has no jurisdiction to cancel the assignment as the Land Reforms Act and the Rules. do not empower him to do so. Therefore Ext. 3. The challenge to Ext. P1 is on two grounds. The Collector has no jurisdiction to cancel the assignment as the Land Reforms Act and the Rules. do not empower him to do so. Therefore Ext. PI is void Secondly, no notice has been given to the petitioner as the person to whom the pro-percy has been alienated and as one actually in possession as is required by R.29 (8) of the Land Reforms (ceiling) Rules. Ext. P1 is violative of this mandatory rule and the principles of natural justice. The petitioner filed an application to review the order. That was summarily rejected. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents namely the District Collector and the Tahsildar the order is sought to be sustained as one being within the power of the Collector. 4. I think the petitioner should succeed on both the grounds. S.96 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act empowers the Land Board to assign on registry land vested in the Government under S.86 or S.87 as specified in that provision. There is no power as such given to Collector in respect of assignment or of cancellation under the Act, or as per the Rules framed under S.95 and 98 which appears in Chapter IV in the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules. R.27 provides for application to be invited by the Land Board in respect of assignment on registry. R.29 specifies the conditions and restrictions regarding assignment. As per sub-rule (4) an assignee belonging to a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe with the sanction of the Collector of the district in which the land assigned to him is situate may alienate the whole or any portion of the land to a member belonging to sub caste or tribe, as the case may be. As per sub-rule (5), the assignee of the land or a member of his family, as the case may be, his successor-in-interest shall for the period during which the alienation is prohibited under sub-rule (1) reside in the land if such land is used for purposes of residence or personally cultivate the same if such land is used for agricultural purposes, provided that the Collector of the District in which such land is situate may by order in writing exempt any person subject to such restrictions and conditions he may impose from the operation of the sub-rule. There is no statutory provision in that rule empowering the collector to cancel the assignment made by the Land Board. In the circumstances the Land Board alone can cancel the assignment. Petitioner is also right in his contentions regarding the validity of the impugned order for lack of notice to him before it was made. Sub Rule (8) of R.29 provides: "The assignment of any land under S.96 shall be liable to be cancelled for contravention of any of the conditions or restrictions laid down in this rule and the land assigned shall be liable to be resumed by or at the instance of the authority which assigned the land as if such land belonging to Government and in the authorised occupation of the person then in possession or occupation, provided that no such cancellation shall be done without giving the party affected thereby a reasonable opportunity of being heard". The 'party affected' indicated therein certainly takes in the person to whom the property has been assigned. In this view I allow this Original Petition and quash Ext. P1. I make no order as to costs, in the circumstances of this case. Allowed.