Kerala High Court
Kunhivalappil Krishnan vs The Taluk Land Board on 19 August, 2009
Author: S.S.Satheesachandran
Bench: S.S.Satheesachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 449 of 2009()
1. KUNHIVALAPPIL KRISHNAN, AGED 51
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,
3. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JANARDHANAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :19/08/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
C.R.P.No.449 of 2009 - E
---------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of August, 2009
O R D E R
Revision is directed against the order dated 11.3.2009 passed by the Taluk Land Board, Thaliparamba. Petitioner claimed tenancy right over 5 acres of land in R.S.No.14/3 of Peruthatta Village, Thaliparamba Taluk which formed part of the land surrendered by the declarant in Taluk Land Board's proceedings 1917/73 and 478/73. The claimant filing an application under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, claimed that the property of 5 acres in the above survey number came into possession of his mother in the year 1963 as purappad pattom arrangement. Two receipts signed by the landlords, the basic documents, were pressed into service to show the lease arrangement and possession over the land as a tenant. It was his case that his mother Kunhathi Amma, while continuing enjoyment over the property as a tenant sold 5 acres of land in her possession to one Narayanan Nair and from him he purchased the property on valuable consideration. He was not C.R.P.No.449 of 2009 - E 2 dispossessed from the land though it was included in the land to be surrendered by the declarant was his case. When there was an attempt to trespass upon his property in possession by a neighbour he had filed a suit for injunction. Though the suit was dismissed and decision thereof upheld in a second appeal, S.A.No.390 of 1992, by this Court, in that appeal a direction was issued to the Taluk Land Board to dispose the petition filed by him under Section 85(8) of the Land Reforms Act on its merits uninfluenced by the decision in the suit. The Taluk Land Board, pursuant to such direction considered the claim of the petitioner and it was rejected by order dated 25.1.2001.
2. That order was challenged by the petitioner in C.R.P.No.706 of 2001 and the revision was disposed setting aside the decision of the Taluk Land Board directing to give an opportunity to the petitioner to prove the genuineness of the receipts already produced and also lead further evidence to substantiate his claim. Again the Taluk Land Board considered the claim of the petitioner and it was rejected by order dated 28.2.2004 holding that no evidence was adduced by the petitioner to prove the genuineness of the rent receipts and C.R.P.No.449 of 2009 - E 3 further he has not proved his fixity of tenure over the land. That order was challenged by the petitioner in C.R.P.No.341 of 2004 and by order dated 10.2.2008 passed by this Court, the order of the Taluk Land Board was set aside. The Taluk Land Board was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh with further direction that the claim raised under Section 7E and Section 84 which was canvassed before this Court in that revision has also to be examined. The Taluk Land Board was directed to afford opportunity to the petitioner to adduce further evidence in support of his claim. The documents produced by the petitioner was directed to be examined and the order should reflect a fair discretion over such document was the further direction in the order of this Court disposing the above revision. Pursuant thereto the Taluk Land Board again considered the claim of the petitioner with reference to the contention raised earlier and also the fresh claim canvassed under Sections 7E and 84 of the Land Reforms Act. After examining such claims the impugned order was passed holding that the claimant has not proved his tenancy right over the land involved. It was also found that the claim raised by him does not fall under the ambit of Sections 7E and 84 C.R.P.No.449 of 2009 - E 4 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and he cannot be deemed as a tenant under those sections. Claim petition moved by the petitioner under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act was therefore rejected once again. Correctness of that order passed by the Taluk Land Board is challenged in this revision.
3. In the memorandum of revision among other grounds impeaching the impugned order passed by the Taluk Land Board it is contended that there was denial of opportunity to the petitioner to establish his claim. Chairman of the Land Board refused to examine the witnesses, three of whom were produced by the claimant on the date of hearing on 11.3.2009 and no opportunity was provided for hearing of the case as well, is the ground of attack raised in paragraph 11 of the statement of facts. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel challenged the impugned order mainly pressing into service the aforesaid ground contending that there was denial of opportunity to the claimant to establish his claim.
4. I have gone through the order of the Taluk Land Board. The definite case set up by the claimant is over five acres of land in R.S.No.14/3 Thaliparamba Taluk which admittedly form C.R.P.No.449 of 2009 - E 5 part of 32.67.750 acres ordered to be surrendered as land in excess of ceiling area from the declarant Sri.Puthelath Periyadan Narayanan Nair. Whereas the Taluk Land Board has a case that the entire land from the declarant had been taken possession of the claimant contends that he was not dispossessed and he continues to be in possession of five acres of land. His case is that his mother Kunhathi Amma had been in enjoyment of the land from P.T. Sankaran Nair by way of an oral lease arrangement earlier to the commencement of the Land Reforms Act. His mother had transferred 5 acres of land to one Puthelath Periyadan Narayanan Nair in the year 1979 and from that transferee by a registered document of the year 1980, he got right and possession over the land was the basis of his claim. Setting forth such a case he has raised a claim under Section 85 (8) of the Land Reforms Act before the Taluk Land Board. Admittedly, a suit filed by him for injunction against neighbour alleging trespass over the land in his possession was dismissed. But, in the second appeal from that suit, this Court has made some observation on the question of title. Petitioner had moved a claim petition under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms C.R.P.No.449 of 2009 - E 6 Act and in the second appeal preferred against the dismissal of the suit for dismissal of the suit for injunction this Court held that this is a case where delay in filing his claim petition deserve to be condoned and his claim enquired on its merits. Accordingly, the Taluk Land Board considered his claim and orders were passed from time to time. But, more than one occasion such orders have been reversed by this Court in revisions filed by the claimant. So far as the merit of the order impugned in the present revision, the direction given in the last revision by this Court in C.R.P.No.341 of 2004 which was disposed on 10.2.2008 deserve to be taken note of. This Court, while disposing of that revision has made the following directions:
"In view of the contentions raised as narrated in impugned order and also the further contention before this Court regarding the claim of Section7E to Section 84 of the Land Reforms Act, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration. The Taluk Land Board shall afford an opportunity to the revision petitioner to adduce fresh evidence in any, in support of the revision petitioner's respective contentions. The Taluk Land Board shall examine all the documents produced by the revision petitioner and fair discussion shall be made."
C.R.P.No.449 of 2009 - E 7 The order passed by the Taluk Land Board would show, pursuant to the remittance of the case for fresh consideration, the claimant had applied for appointment of an advocate commissioner to conduct a local inspection to prepare a report and site plan and the Board rejected it as authorised officers have been appointed for preparing report and sketches with the assistance of a village officer and surveyor. I find no impropriety in the orders passed by the Taluk Land Board in rejecting the request for appointment of a commissioner as desired by the claimant. The authorised officer was again sent for an inspection and from the order, it is seen, after issuing notice to the claimants, he inspected the land. In his report, it has been stated in the order would show the land claimed by the petitioner was taken possession from Karunakaran Nair, the declarant in ceiling case that there are no trees in the surplus land and that there is no house or well in the area or neighbouring area. The purappad pattom produced by the claimant it was found was issued by one P.T.Sankaran Nair where as the village record showed that the registered land holder was one Rayarappan Nair. The authorised officer has also reported that the issue of purapad receipts is vested with the registered C.R.P.No.449 of 2009 - E 8 land holder. The Taluk Land Board had also noted that the claimant has not even paid the basic tax for the land from 1970 to 78-79 and the tax receipt related to the period 79-80 was shown. The documents produced by the petitioner/claimant were considered by the Taluk Land Board with reference to the ceiling report, original verification report etc. and even the rent receipts produced by the petitioner were found to be unattested photocopies. Two rent receipts related to the same year but issued with a differrent date and that remained without any explanation was also noted by the Taluk Land Board to doubt its genuineness and validity. The receipts had been created and it cannot be accepted, was the view of the Taluk Land Board. The claim raised under Section 7E was also examined by the Taluk Land Board and it was found the petitioner failed to prove that the land in question was acquired by him or his predecessor-in- interest by way of purchase or otherwise on payment of consideration from a person holding land in excess of his ceiling area. In this context it has to be noted that the claim of the petitioner is that his mother came into possession of the land by way of an oral lease arrangement before the Act came into force C.R.P.No.449 of 2009 - E 9 and during the period mentioned under 7E of the Act she had transferred the land to another and from that transferee by a registered document he got possession of the land in 1980. When that be the case and bare reading of Section 7E itself indicate that the claimant will not be entitled to be considered as a deemed tenant under that Section. The claim raised by Section 7E even on the belated claim deserve to be taken note of only for rejection. The only plea canvassed to challenge the order of the Taluk Land Board is built upon a ground that there was denial of opportunity to establish his claim. Other than that ground canvassed as under paragraph 11 of the memorandum of revision, there is nothing to sustain his case that an opportunity was not extended to prove his case. His entire claim is built upon two photocopy receipts and despite several opportunities given setting aside the previous orders passed by the Taluk Land Board, it is seen that the petitioner has failed to prove his claim as a tenant over the land. I find that the Taluk Land Board has meticulously considered the claim raised by the petitioner with reference to the documents produced and reached the conclusion that the claim raised is meritless. There was denial of C.R.P.No.449 of 2009 - E 10 opportunity in establishing his claim and there was refusal by the Taluk Land Board even to examine the witnesses produced by him the ground canvassed to impeach the order of the Taluk Land Board is prima facie unsustainable. Not even an affidavit had been filed by the claimant/revision petitioner to substantiate such a case. He was represented by a counsel before the Taluk Land Board to prosecute his claim is evident from the order of the Taluk Land Board. I find no merit in the revision.
Revision is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE.
bkn/-