Judgment :- 1. Lands found to be in excess of the ceiling limits, in proceedings under Chapter III of Act 1/64, vest in the Government, under S.86 and 87 of the Act. S.96 empowers the Land Board (which is distinct from the Taluk Land Boards) to assign such surplus lands on registry to kudikidappukars, landless labourers etc. R.25 to 33 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970 lay down the procedure for making assignments and the conditions under which they could be made. What is important to notice for the purposes of the present case is that those rules speak of assignments being made by the Land Board, and cancellations of the same by the same body, under certain circumstances. 2. Four persons obtained assignment of surplus lands in Anikad Village of Kottayam Taluk, under the above statutory scheme. But contrary to the prescription of R.29(1), they sold away those lands to the four petitioners in this Writ Petition. The assignments in question were therefore liable to be cancelled, under R.29 (8); and after notice to the parties concerned, the District Collector, Kottayam passed orders of cancellation. It is those orders which are now under challenge. 3. The only point raised is that the District Collector cannot exercise power under R.29(8) and cancel an assignment duly made; under the scheme of the Act and the Rules, only the Land Board has got the power to dp so, it is contended. And this contention is supported by the decision of Chandrasekhar Menon J. in Bhaskara Kurup v. District Collector (1982 KLT 656). 4. As I shall presently show, the attention of the learned judge does not appear to have been drawn to the other relevant statutory provisions, when Kurup's case was being considered. 5. And this contention is supported by the decision of Chandrasekhar Menon J. in Bhaskara Kurup v. District Collector (1982 KLT 656). 4. As I shall presently show, the attention of the learned judge does not appear to have been drawn to the other relevant statutory provisions, when Kurup's case was being considered. 5. S.128A of the Act reads: "Delegation of powers by Land Board;-The Land Board may, with the previous approval of the Government, by general or special order in writing, delegate to any District Collector any of its powers under this Act, other than the powers under sub-s. (2) of S.101, to be exercised in respect of such area as may be specified in the order, subject to such conditions and reservations as it may deem fit." S.129(1) authorises the Government to make rules to carry out all or any of the purposes the Act; and clause (g) of sub-s. (2) indicates that such rules may provide for "the assignment of lands by the Land Board under S.96". On 27-12-71 the Land Board had come out with the following order/ notification: "In exercise of the powers conferred by S.128A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964) and in supersession of its order No LB (A) 2-9921/71 dated 29-10-1971 the Land Board, with the previous approval of the Government, hereby delegates its powers under S.96 of the said Act, except the power under Sub-Section (1 A) of that Section, to the District Collectors to be exercised by them within their respective jurisdiction, subject to the following restrictions and reservations: 1. The District Collectors shall not exercise the powers of assignment before the Land Board reserves the lands required for public purposes; and 2 The District Collectors shall exercise the power of assignment subject to the general supervision and control of the Land Board". On a combined reading of S.96, S.128A, S.129 and the provisions of the Ceiling Rules, along with the notification extracted above, it seems to me that the District Collectors in the State could assign lands marked out for distribution under S.96, and also cancel such assignments when found necessary, under the Rules, in exercise of the powers delegated to them. 6. It is averred in the Original Petition that the assignment of surplus lands to the predecessores-in¬interest of the petitioners herein were made by the Taluk Land Board. 6. It is averred in the Original Petition that the assignment of surplus lands to the predecessores-in¬interest of the petitioners herein were made by the Taluk Land Board. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules authorising Taluk Land Boards to make such assignments. If the averment in the O. P. is correct, it can even be suggested that there were no assignments at all, in accordance with law, and that therefore no complaint could be raised against their cancellations. 7. To my knowledge, assignments under S.96 are usually made by the District Collectors in the light of the powers delegated to them under S.128A and the notification referred to; and if the Collector has the power to assign under certain conditions, he must also have the power to cancel the assignment, where the conditions are violated and the rule authorises such cancellations. 8. Paragraph (4) of the judgment in Kurup (1982 KLT 656) does not refer either to S.128A or the notification delegating powers to the District Collectors. The decision was apparently rendered under the assumption that S.96 was the controlling provision. Had Chandrasekara Menon J. referred S.128A and the notification in question,1 would have, with respect, referred the matter to a Division Bench, rather than attempting to strike a different note by myself. But statutory prescriptions are more important than precedents, and if a choice has to be made between the two, it is the duty of a court to give over-riding effect to the former. I therefore dismiss the Original Petition, but without any order as to costs.