Kerala High Court
M.Meera Sahib Rawther vs The State Of Kerala on 29 October, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2014/7TH JYAISHTA, 1936
CRP.No. 230 of 2010
------------------------
SM NO. 1359/1977 OF TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD
DATED 29/10/2009
......
REVISION PETITIONERS:
--------------------------------------------
1. M.MEERA SAHIB RAWTHER,S/O.MUTHU RAWTHER.
2. SIRAJUNEESA,D/O.SUBAIDA.
3. HAMEEDA,D/O.SUBAIDA.
4. REHMATH,D/O.SUBAIDA.
5. ALA PICHAI,S/O.SUBAIDA.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT KAKKATHODE KALAM, THENARI,
ELAPPULLYP.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
RESPONDENTS:
----------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE TALUK LAND BOARD,PALAKKAD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,PALAKKAD TALUK,PALAKKAD.
* 4. SWARANAMMAL,WIDOW OF MURUKAN PILLAI.( D I E D) -
LR'S RECORDED.
Kss ..2/-
..2...
CRP.NO.230/2010
5. SARASWATHY AMMAL,D/O.MURUKAN PILLAI.
6. RAJAMMAL,D/O.MURUKAN PILLAI,
RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT THENARI,
ELAPPULLY,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
*RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 ARE RECORDED AS STHE LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED 4TH RESPONDENT
AS PER ORDER DATED 20/03/2012 IN MEMO BEARING
CF.NO.1411/12 IN CRP 230/10.
R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUSHEELA R.BHAT
R5 & R6 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 28-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Kss
K.HARILAL, J.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
C.R.P. No.230 of 2010
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2014
O R D E R
The first revision petitioner as well as his wife deceased Subaida, are the original claim petitioners under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act'). The revision petitioners 2 to 6 are impleaded as legal heirs of the deceased Subaida. The Land Board initiated proceedings under Section 85(7) against the assessee Smt. Swarnammal and she was directed to surrender an extent of 0.54 acres of land being excess of the above ceiling limit. As per the order passed in CRP. No.1017/04, this Court directed the Land Board to measure out the entire property in the account of the assessee and also to consider the contentions of purchasers under Section 7E of the KLR Act. Subsequently, the first revision petitioner as well as the deceased Subaida filed C.R.P.230/10 :2:
claim petitions under Section 7E contending as follows:-
The first petitioner had purchased 2.08 acres of land comprised in Sy.No.221B/1 of Elappully Village from the declarant as per Sale Deed No.746/73, S.R.O., Palakkad dtd. 26-3-1973. The deceased Subaida had purchased 1.75 acres of land comprised in Sy.No.221B/1 of Elappully Village from one Assanar Rawther. The above said Assanar Rawther purchased the property from the declarant as per the sale deed No.745/73 of SRO, Palakkad dtd. 26-3-1973. Subaida purchased the property from Assanar Rawther by Sale Deed No.1679/77 of SRO, Palakkad dtd. 28-6-1977 and the revision petitioner and his wife were in absolute possession of the same. Thus, they had purchased the property for consideration by virtue of valid sale deeds referred above.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of specific directions in CRP.No.1017/04 the Taluk Land Board has not considered the claim under Section 7E. Though they have produced documents evidencing their C.R.P.230/10 :3:
absolute title and ownership over the property by way of purchase, the Land Board has not looked into those documents and passed an order rejecting their valid claims. The legality and propriety of the impugned order are under challenge in this Revision Petition.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners advanced arguments challenging the findings by which the revision petitioners' claim under Section 7E had been rejected by the Land Board. According to him, the Taluk Land Board miserably failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it in spite of the specific direction of this Court in CRP No.1017/04. Though the claim petition was produced, the sale deeds by which they got title and possession over the property, the Taluk Land Board has not considered those documents, but rejected their claim without application of mind. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the Taluk Land Board be directed to consider the claim again.
4. Per contra, the learned Special Government C.R.P.230/10 :4:
Pleader advanced arguments to justify the impugned order under challenge. Going by the impugned order, it could be seen that in CRP.No.1017/04 this Court has passed a specific direction to the Land Board to measure out the total extent of the property in the account of the declarant and to consider the claims of all the subsequent purchasers under Section 7E of the Land Reforms Act. This Court specifically held that it is open to the Land Board to consider the contentions of the purchasers under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. But, apparently, it appears that in total defiance to the order of this Court, the Land Board has not considered the petitioners' claim under Section 7E in its correct perspective. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that though they had produced title deeds by which the claim petitioners got title and possession over the property, the Taluk Land Board has not looked into those documents. Going by the impugned order, it is seen that the Taluk Land Board has not referred to those documents. Thus, I am not satisfied C.R.P.230/10 :5:
with the impugned order under challenge. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside with respect to the revision petitioners' claim and I do so. The Land Board is directed to consider the revision petitioners' claim under Section 7E and pass order afresh, after affording and opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. The revision petitioners are at liberty to produce any evidence, if necessary. The Land Board is further directed to incorporate an appendix at the bottom of the order to be passed afresh, specifying the documents which are produced by the revision petitioners before the Land Board.
Sd/-
(K.HARILAL, JUDGE) okb.