Kerala High Court
Siva Prakash vs The State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2010
Author: S.S.Satheesachandran
Bench: S.S.Satheesachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 380 of 2009()
1. SIVA PRAKASH, S/O.P.A.KUTTIKRISHNAN.
... Petitioner
2. PRABHUL RAJ, S/O.P.A.KUTTIKRISHNAN.
3. PRADEEP, S/O.P.A.KUTTIKRISHNAN.
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE TALUK LAND BOARD,
3. THE TAHILDAR, PALAKKAD TALUK.
4. P.A.KUTTIKRISHNAN, S/O.APPU,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :15/01/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
C.R.P.NO.380 OF 2009 ()
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010
O R D E R
Petitioners are the children of the assesee, the 4th respondent, who was directed to surrender an extent of 1.10 acres of land held in excess of the ceiling limit. Petitioners, who were minors at the time of commencement of the proceedings canvassing a case that they have a right to be heard in the matter in respect of the orders passed in the ceiling proceedings, have challenged the orders passed by the Taluk Land Board directing the 4th respondent to surrender excess land as indicated above. In a previous revision filed by the present revision petitioners as C.R.P.No.553 of 2004 challenging the order of the Taluk Land Board dated 9.10.2001, this Court has held thus:
The grievance of the petitioners is regarding the properties to be surrendered in Survey No.170/1A. The Taluk Land CRP.380/09 2 Board accounted 1.58 acres as belonging to the assesee. The only question to be examined is whether the property ordered to be surrendered is 1.58 acres or 1.30 acres in extent. The exact extent can be ascertained only by measuring the property. In such circumstances, when a request is made for measuring the property, it cannot be rejected stating unsustainable reasons.
Observing so, the revision was disposed directing the Taluk Land Board to depute a responsible officer to the site to measure out the property and ascertain the exact extent of the property in question. Pursuant to such remission, the disputed property, admittedly, situate in Sy.No.170/1A was measured out, and thereafter, the order impugned in the revision was passed. It is seen from the order that the family of the declarant held 5.04 acres in Sy.No.170/1A and not 1.58 acres. The draft statement issued on 30.11.1982 had shown the extent of land as 5.04 acres and it was not challenged by the declarant/4th respondent. The declarant, in fact, got possession of 1.58 acres in the same survey number along with 0.43 cents in Sy.No.178/12A under a document CRP.380/09 3 No.3373/82, that is, after 1.1.1970. The above extent of 1.58 acres, which was subsequently obtained by the declarant in Sy.No.170/1A, was not taken into account when the ceiling case was proceeded against the declarant, which took into account only 5.04 acres in the same survey number, which the family of the declarant had possessed as on 1.1.1970. The case canvassed that there was some mistake in the orders passed by the Taluk Land Board that the actual extent of the land in Sy.No.170/1A belonging to the family of the declarant is 1.30 acres and not 1.58 acres is nothing but an experimental venture to prolong and protract the ceiling proceedings. In the impugned order of the Taluk Land Board with particulars, 5.04 acres comprising in Sy.No.170/1A, which form part of the 15 acres belonging to the family of the declarant is specifically stated. The declarant was directed to surrender 1.58 acres out of 5.04 acres in that survey number is challenged by the children of the declarant by challenging the orders of the Taluk Land Board repeatedly building their case on the basis of a subsequent acquisition made in the very same survey number with a property in another survey CRP.380/09 4 number as well. That property is having a lesser extent of only 1.30 acres is the case projected by the children of the declarant to assail the fixation of the excess land by the Board as against the declarant. It is interesting to note that the declarant has not even challenged the draft statement published as early in 1982 holding that the family has got 5.04 acres in Sy.No.170/1A. The declarant had purchased 1.58 acres in Sy.No.170/1A long after the commencement of the ceiling proceedings over and above the 5.04 acres, which alone was taken into his account to fix the ceiling area, is the sole basis for the challenge raised by the children of the declarant to impeach the orders passed by the Taluk Land Board fixing the excess land to be surrendered by the declarant. The Taluk Land Board has held that in respect of the subsequent acquisition over and above the ceiling limit, 2.01 acres under the document No.3373/82, that is, after 1.1.1970 with the properties of 1.58 acres comprising in Sy.No.170/1A and 0.43 in Sy.No.170/12A, suo motu action under Section 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act has to be initiated as such purchase is shown to be in excess of the CRP.380/09 5 ceiling limit of the family. The Board has not taken suo motu action so far in respect of such excess land acquired after fixation of the ceiling limit, directing him to surrender the excess land determined in the ceiling proceedings has given a long rope to the petitioners/the children of the declarant to continue the challenges disputing the description and extent of the area of excess land fixed form the survey number 170/1A covered by the ceiling account on the basis of a subsequent acquisition after 1.1.1970 in the same survey number. When the declarant had 5.04 acres in Sy.No.170/1A and that alone was not taken in his ceiling account to fix the excess area, the case canvassed by the petitioners as if the declarant had only 1.58 acres in that survey number, but, its actual extent was only of 1.30 acres, is unworthy of any merit. Revision challenging the order passed by the Taluk Land Board under Section 103 of the KLR Act, needless to say, can be entertained by this Court only if it is shown that the authority has entered a decision erroneously or failed to decide any question of law. No question of law is raised or canvassed in the present case. On that ground also, the CRP.380/09 6 revision is found to be meritless and not entertainable. Revision is accordingly dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp