Kerala High Court
* P.Kunhiraman Nair vs The Taluk Land Board
Author: V.Chitambaresh
Bench: V.Chitambaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/30TH KARTHIKA, 1936
CRP(LR).No. 100 of 2013 (D)
---------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.1.2013 IN SMC.3/98/Mtdy. & TLB 338/73 (NW) OF
TALUK LAND BOARD, MANANTHAVADY
REVISION PETITIONER:
--------------------------
* P.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, AGED 86 YEARS,
S/O.MADHAVI NETHIAR, KUNHIVEEDU, ELUMANNAM P.O.,
EDAVAKA, MANANTHAVADY TALUK. (DIED)
SUPPLEMENTAL REVISION PETITIONERS 2 TO 7
2. C.K.SATHYABHAMA, 58 YEARS, D/O.LATE P.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR,
MOORTHIMULA, VARADHOOR P.O., KALPETTA (VIA)
3. C.K.RETHNAVALLY, 56 YEARS, D/O.LATE P.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR,
"SUVARNNA", AARATTUTHARA P.O., MANANTHAVADY.
4. C.K.ANANDARAM, 52 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR,
KUTHI VEEDU, ELLUMANNAM P.O., MANANTHAVADY.
5. NIRMALADEVI C.K., 49 YEARS, D/O.LATE P.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR,
"ISWARYA", NALLURNAD P.O., MANANTHAVADY.
6. C.K.SANTHI, 44 YEARS, D/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN NAIR,
HILL VIEW, ELLUMANNAM P.O., MANANTHAVADY (VIA).
7. C.K.BINDU, 40 YEARS, D/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN NAIR,
MEETHALE VALAPPIL (SREEVATLSAM), ULLIYERI P.O.,
KOYILANDY (VIA), KOZHIKODE.
(SUPPLEMENTAL REVISION PETITIONERS 2 TO 7 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE
LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED SOLE REV. PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED
156.11.13 IN I.A.No.2822/13 IN CRP.No.100/13.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN
SRI.P.A.HARISH
CRP (LR) No.100/2013
: 2 :
RESPONDENTS:
-----------------
1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD
MANANTHAVADY, REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN.
2. THE TAHSILDAR, MANANTHAVADY.
3. STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
R1-R3 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER(REVENUE)
SMT.SUSHEELA R. BHAT.
THIS CRP (LAND REFORMS ACT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21-11-2014, ALONG WITH CRP(LR) Nos. 119 & 179/2013, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V.CHITAMBARESH, J.
---------------------
C.R.P (LR) Nos.100, 119 & 179 of 2013
---------------------
Dated this the 21st day of November, 2014
O R D E R
The Taluk Land Board by order dated 7.1.1977 directed the declarant to surrender 16.60 acres as lands in excess of his ceiling area. The said order was set aside in CRP.No.1371/1977 on the file of this Court by order dated 3.4.1977 and the ceiling case remanded. The declarant pending proceedings sold 9 acres of land (styled as rubber plantation) in the year 1977 to different persons by name, Baby, Daisy Elias and Elias K.Joseph. The Taluk Land Board passed revised orders on 29.8.1978 directing the declarant to surrender 2.40 acres as in excess of his ceiling area. The Taluk Land Board in so doing exempted 11 acres of land (including 9 acres transferred as above) in Survey No.5 of Edavaka Village as rubber plantation. It is reported that the assignees sold the property to Nellikunnel Soman and Sarasamma by Sale Deed Nos.523/1997 and 524/1997.
2. The Taluk Land Board thereafter initiated proceedings for re-opening the ceiling case under Section 85(9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. CRP.Nos.100,119 & 179 of 2013 2 The reason stated was that 9 acres of land out of 11 acres exempted as rubber plantation was destroyed by fire. The allegation was that the area was not replanted with rubber trees after fire and hence the property has lost its exemption. The Taluk Land Board however dropped the proceedings for reopening by order dated 21.4.1988 reserving its right to proceed under Section 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.
3. The Taluk Land Board thereafter issued a notice dated 29.7.2004 purporting to initiate proceedings under Section 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The reasons stated for initiating such proceedings are as follows:
i) 8 acres of land out of 9 acres should be treated as barren land and not plantation eligible for exemption.
ii) There has been an acquisition of land to
the extent of 2.21 acres in Survey
Nos.432/10 and 334/1.
ii) There has been an acquisition of extent
2.96 acres in Survey NO.21/8 and 22/7.
CRP.Nos.100,119 & 179 of 2013 3
4. The revision Petitioners urge that 2.21 acres aforementioned takes in 2 acres of coffee plantation acquired by the wife of the declarant. The acquisition was in the year 1984 and 21 cents of land was also acquired by the wife of the declarant under Document No.2894/94. It is the case of the revision petitioners that the 2 acres of land is a coffee plantation liable to be exempted. Similarly 2.96 acres aforementioned take in 1.64 acres allotted under a Deed of Partition to the wife of the declarant. The remaining 1.32 acres in the 2.96 acres has been acquired by the two married daughters of the declarant under Document No.2674/1978. The daughters though were members of the statutory family at the time of original assignment had by then married and the acquisitions are personal in character.
5. The revision petitioners point out that 3.19 acres included in the account have also been sold which are liable to be excluded. The following are the area transferred by the declarant and his wife under the various sale deeds:-
CRP.Nos.100,119 & 179 of 2013 4 Sl.No. Assignor Document No. Extent 1 Declarant 3637/85 53 cents 2 Declarant 982/89 20 cents 3 Declarant 1415/89 31 cents 4 Declarant 2809/10 25 cents 5 Declarant 4048/82 50 cents 6 Declarant 2029/82 1 Acre 7 Wife of declarant 2808/2000 30 cents TOTAL 3.19 Acres I find logic in the contention of the petitioners that the lands sold should be deleted from their account if the lands subsequently acquired have been added. The Taluk Land Board has evidently not deleted the extent of 3.19 acres of land sold by the declarant and his wife under the various sale deeds. Whether the petitioners in CRP.Nos.119 & 179 of 2013 are entitled to the benefit of Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 has not been considered. The applicability of Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 has to be reconsidered in the light of the dictum in Rajeev v. District Collector [2014 (4) KLT 209] and State of Kerala v. Thomas Kurian [2014 (4) KLT 417]. As to how the acquisiton made by the two married daughters of the CRP.Nos.100,119 & 179 of 2013 5 declarant can be tacked on is also a matter for adjudication. The daughters who were earlier the members of the statutory family have now got married and gone into another family. This aspect of the matter also deserves consideration in the proceedings under Section 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
6. 9 acres out of 11 acres was sold by the declarant even one year prior to the revised order of the Taluk Land Board dated 29.8.1978. The Taluk Land Board had treated 11 acres (including 9 acres) as rubber plantation while granting exemption. It is bewildering as to how the proceedings under Section 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 could be initiated against the declarant who has already parted with his property for consideration. The proceedings under Section 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 have been initiated only after 27 years from the date of alienation. Where there has been actual conversion of the rubber plantation itself is a moot question to be addressed by the Taluk Land Board. There has not been any wanton or deliberate act by the declarant in the rubber plants being lost by fire. The concept of CRP.Nos.100,119 & 179 of 2013 6 conversion has to be decided in the context of the decision in Chacko Varghese v. Taluk Land Board [1982 KLT 72].
7. I set aside the impugned order of the Taluk Land Board and remand the case for de novo consideration in the light of the observation above.
This order disposes of CRP.No.100/2013 filed by the declarant and CRP.Nos.119 & 179 of 2013 filed by the assignees. The Taluk Land Board shall make every endeavour to pass final orders within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.
nj.