Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Kerala High Court

Thommi Mathai vs The State Of Kerala Rep. By Land on 23 May, 2008

Author: Harun-Ul-Rashid

Bench: Harun-Ul-Rashid

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP.No. 967 of 2002()


1. THOMMI MATHAI, AGED 70 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY LAND
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CHAIRMAN, TALUK LAND BOARD,

3. THE TAHSILDAR, HODURG.

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, HOSDURG.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.RAJEEVAN

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID

 Dated :23/05/2008

 O R D E R
                        HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
                   --------------------------------------------
                         C.R.P. NO. 967 OF 2002
                   --------------------------------------------

                  Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008


                                   ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the claimant challenging the order dated 27.4.2002 passed by the Taluk Land Board, Hosdurg in TLB No.1432/73. According to the revision petitioner, he is in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 9.50 acres of property in R.S. No.193/Pt of Maloth Village. It is also submitted by him that his predecessor-in-interest got tenancy right over the property in question as per Kuzhikanam Marupat deed No.541/1956 and that he obtained the property from the tenant by kuzhikanam right. The revision petitioner further submitted that subsequently he applied for jenm right and the Tribunal vide its order dated 23.4.1977 issued purchase certificate No.1584/77 by virtue of which he got absolute ownership of the property and , therefore, the Taluk Land Board was wrong in negativing his claim. The revision petitioner also submitted that he had produced Kuzhikanam Marupat deed No.541/1956 and the purchase certificate before the Takuk Land Board , but the Taluk Land Board wrongly observed that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence to prove his tenancy right over the property. C.R.P. NO.967/2002 2

2. The revision petitioner has produced the copy of the purchase certificate before this Court for my perusal. I have gone through the purchase certificate dated 23.4.1977 and I am of the view that the dismissal of the claim of the revision petitioner is illegal. Hence, the Taluk Land Board is directed to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law after perusing the Kuzhikanam Marupat deed No.541/1956 and the purchase certificate and pass fresh orders within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above direction. There will be no order as to costs.

(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C.R.P. NO.967/2002 3 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J.

C.R.P. NO. 967/2002 O R D E R 23RD MAY, 2008 C.R.P. NO.967/2002 4