Kerala High Court
K. Upendra Rao vs M. Narashim Shenai on 6 April, 2010
Author: P.Bhavadasan
Bench: P.Bhavadasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 531 of 2004()
1. K. UPENDRA RAO, S/O. KRISHNOJI RAO
... Petitioner
2. PRAKASH M. NAYAK, S/O. MADHAVA N. NAYAK
Vs
1. M. NARASHIM SHENAI, S/O. RAMACHANDRA
... Respondent
2. TALUK LAND BOARD, KASARAGODE.
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.K.N.SIVASANKARAN
For Respondent :SRI.V.V.ASOKAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :06/04/2010
O R D E R
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C.R.P. No. 531 of 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is against the order of the Taluk Land Board, Kasaragod dated 15.1.2004 in TLB 1342 of 1973.
2. Ceiling proceedings were initiated against Sri.M. Ramchandra Shanbhouge, who was found to have possessed 106.56 acres of land. The first respondent herein claimed that an extent of 3.87 acres in R.S.234 and 1.08 acres in R.S.142/1 of Kunjatur village was held by him as a cultivating tenant and he had produced purchase certificate regarding the said property. Initially the tenancy rights were held by Santhappa Naik under a Chalageni Lease of the year 1959. The second petitioner herein also claimed an extent of 4 acres in R.S. 234 and 48 cents in R.S. 141/5 of Kanjatur Village was held by him as cultivating tenant. He too traces his title to Santhappa Nair. The authorised officer reported that the CRP.531/2004. 2 claims of the petitioners are genuine. The Taluk Land Board also allowed the claim based on the Revenue Inspector's report. Surprisingly enough these items of properties were shown to be surrendered by the declarant. According to the petitioners, that is clearly illegal and the properties held by them had to be excluded from consideration from the account of the declarant. They assailed the order of the Taluk Land Board including the lands held by them for surrender.
3. Paragraphs 17 and 19 dealt with the claims of the petitioners. In those paragraphs the Taluk Land Board has held that the claim of the petitioners are genuine and held that they are cultivating tenants in respect of the properties. That was based on the authorised officer's report and the documents produced. Surprisingly enough these lands are seen included in the property liable to be surrendered by the declarant. That is clearly wrong. If as a matter of fact, the claim of the petitioners is correct, then, the extent of land held by them will have to be reduced from CRP.531/2004. 3 the account of the declarant and it could not have been taken as land liable to be surrendered. The order is clearly illegal to this extent. The issue needs reconsideration at the hands of the Taluk Land Board.
In the result, the impugned order so far as the petitioners are concerned is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Taluk Land Board for fresh consideration in accordance with law and in the light of what has been stated above.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.