Kerala High Court
Savithrikutty Amma vs The Taluk Land Board on 3 September, 2014
Author: K.Harilal
Bench: K.Harilal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/12TH BHADRA, 1936
CRP.No. 198 of 2009 ( )
------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN LB 218/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONERS/CLAIM PETITIONERS:
-----------------------------------------
1. SAVITHRIKUTTY AMMA,
W/O.SOMASEKHARAN PILLAI, SAVITHRI NIVAS, KUNDUTHODI
KAZHANI, KAVASSERY II VILLAGE, PADUR P.O.
ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2. DEEPA @ MRINALINI,
D/O.SOMASEKHARAN PILLAI, SAVITHRI NIVAS, KUNDUTHODI
KAZHANI, KAVASSERY II VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK
PADUR P.O., PKD DIST.(PETITIONERS
ARE REP. BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SOMASEKHARAN PILLAI, S/O.BHASKARAN PILLAI,
SAITHRI NIVAS, KUNDUTHODI, KAZHANI,
KAVASSERY II VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK,
PADUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT, NON PARTY & CLAIMANT:
---------------------------------------------
1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD,
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. P.N.NARAYANAN, S/O.P.M.NEELAKANDAN,
NAMBOOTHIRIPPAD, POOMULLI MANA, POST PERINGODE
VIA. KOOTTANAD, OTTAPPALAM TALUK
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
SMT.SUSHEELA R.BHAT, SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R,R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR
R, BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
R, BY ADV. SMT.GEETHA P.MENON
R, BY ADV. SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 03-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RKC
K.HARILAL, J.
= = = = = = = = = = =
C.R.P.No.198 of 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2014
O R D E R
The petitioners are the claimants under Sec.85(8) of the Land Reforms Act, before the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad. According to the petitioners, they are deemed tenants under Sec.7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act') and the property which is being held by them are liable to be exempted from the account of the declarant. The main contention of the petitioners is that, they had purchased an extent of 2.12 acres of land comprised in S.No.138D/2 in Kavassery Village as per document No.191/1989 from one Muthumany. According to the petitioners, this property originally belonged to one Kittu Ezhuthassan, from whom on verumpattam, this property was obtained by the father of one Mr.Velayudhan and he in turn sold this property in 1985 to one Muthumany and his wife Raichal from whom the revision petitioners purchased the property in 1989. But, in the Land Board proceedings, it is seen that, the property was held by the declarant and as such it was included in the properties directed C.R.P.No.198 of 2009 2 to be surrendered. On coming to know about this order of surrender, the revision petitioners filed claim petition under Sec.85(8) of the Act and got rejected.
2. Aggrieved by the said order, they preferred CRP No.550/2005 before this Court. During the pendency of the above revision petition, by Act 21 of 2006, Sec.7E was incorporated in the Act by way of amendment. As per this Section, if the property had been acquired by persons after the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 before the date of commencement of Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005, such persons are to be considered as deemed tenants and as such they could have never been evicted from the property. The petitioners raised this claim also in the above CRP and in view of the said claim, the CRP was disposed of by order directing the Land Board to consider the petitioners' claim under Sec.7E of the Act.
3. In compliance with the said direction, the Land Board, again, considered the petitioners' claim under Sec.7E and rejected the same on a finding that the claimant has not produced certificate of title from the Land Tribunal, declaring C.R.P.No.198 of 2009 3 him as a deemed tenant under Sec.7E of the Act. The legality and propriety of this order are under challenge in this revision petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners advanced arguments challenging the findings of the Land Board and contended that the purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal, in exercise of jurisdiction under Sec.106B of the Act is not required to get exemption under Sec. 84(4) read with Sec.7E of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the Land Board itself empowered to grant exemption under Sec.7E without insisting the production of purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal, declaring his tenancy under Sec. 106B of the Act.
5. Per contra, the learned Special Govt. Pleader advanced arguments to justify the finding that for getting exemption under Sec.7E read with Sec.84(4) of the Act, the purchase certificate granted by the Land Tribunal in exercise of jurisdiction under Sec.106B is necessarily required. To fortify the above arguments, the learned Special Govt. Pleader produced two judgments of this Court in O.P.C No.47/2012 and C.R.P (LR) No.577/2012. In O.P.C No.47/2012, this Court held that the C.R.P.No.198 of 2009 4 status of a purchaser under Sec.7E is that of a 'deemed tenant', so much so, that right on the basis of his claim, has to be considered and determined by the Land Tribunal only. Even assuming that he is a 'deemed tenant' under Sec.7E of the Act, such a question is outside the domain of consideration of the Taluk Land Board as it has to be considered by the Tribunal. If the petitioner is entitled to canvass the status of a 'deemed tenant', no doubt, he can initiate such proceedings as provided by law. Again, this Court considered the same issue in CRP (LR) No.581/2012, whether the purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal is necessary and required for claiming right under Sec.7E of the Act and concurred with the findings in CRP No.47/2012, which held as follows:
"In the aforesaid judgment, learned Judge of this Court has taken the view that "deemed tenancy" under Sec.7E of the Act is a question falling outside the domain of consideration by the TLB as it has to be decided by the Tribunal. It was observed that the petitioner in that case was entitled to canvass the status of a deemed tenant (obviously) before the Tribunal concerned.
Having heard the learned counsel and the Special C.R.P.No.198 of 2009 5 Government Pleader (Revenue), I do not find reason to take a different view of the matter. Therefore, the TLB is correct in its view that so far as the claim made by the petitioners in CRP Nos.577, 579, 580 and 581 of 2012 under Sec.7E of the Act is concerned, that is not a matter to be decided by the TLB. It is made clear that it is open to the petitioners in the above Civil Revisions to agitate their right under Sec.7E of the Act before the Tribunal concerned".
In view of the decisions of this Court referred above, I am also of the view that for claiming exemption under Sec.7E of the Act, purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal, in the exercise of jurisdiction under Sec.106B of the Act is necessarily required. In this analysis, I find that the findings of the Land Board is justifiable.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that application for purchase certificate claiming right under Sec.7E is pending before the Land Tribunal. In the above context, I am of the opinion that the petitioners can be given an opportunity to establish their rights under Sec.7E before the Land Board after the disposal of their application before the Tribunal. Hence, this Revision Petition is disposed of with the following directions. C.R.P.No.198 of 2009 6
(i) Even if, the petitioners have not filed an application, the petitioners shall do so within two months from today.
(ii) It is directed that, in case, petitioners move the concerned Tribunal as stated above within the above period, the respondent shall not take possession of the property, which is in the possession of the petitioners and involved in this CRP until their claim of 'deemed tenancy' is adjudicated finally by the Tribunal and Appellate authorities concerned.
(iii) The petitioners shall produce necessary documents before the Land Board within two months from today to show that they have approached the Land Tribunal for establishing their right under section 7E of the KLR Act, failing which, the order under challenge in this Revision will stand in force.
(iv) If the Revision Petitioners produce necessary document before the Taluk Land Board within the above time, to show the pendency of the claim under Section 7E of the KLR Act, before the Tribunal, the Land Tribunal shall await till the disposal of that claim.
(v) If the Revision Petitioners succeed in establishing their right under Section 7E before the Land Tribunal and C.R.P.No.198 of 2009 7 produces title certificate thereon, this order under challenge will stand set aside and the Land Board shall pass order afresh considering that title certificate, if any. Needless to say, if the Land Tribunal rejects the Revision Petitioners' claim under Sec.7E the impugned order will stand in force.
(vi) The concerned Land Tribunal is also directed to dispose the Revision Petitioners' application, claiming right of 'deemed tenancy' under Section 7E of the KLR Act within six months from today if such an application is pending or filed within two months from today. In that case, the Land Tribunal shall send a copy of the order to be passed to the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad within one month from the date of passing of the order. The revision petitioners shall produce the copy of this order before the concerned Land Tribunal also.
K.HARILAL, JUDGE.
Stu //True copy// P.A to Judge C.R.P.No.198 of 2009 8