Kerala High Court
* Chellappan Nair vs The Taluk Land Board on 28 August, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/4TH ASWINA, 1936
CRP.No. 731 of 2008 ( )
------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN LB 372/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD DATED
28-08-2008
REVISION PETITIONER(S):
----------------------------
* CHELLAPPAN NAIR, S/O.CHERUNNI AMMA,
KUNNATHU VEEDU, KONGAD-I VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. (DIED)
ADDL.2. C.MOHANDAS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN NAIR,
KUNNATHUVEEDU
KONGAD - 1 VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
ADDL.3. GEETHA, D/O.CHELLAPPAN NAIR,
-DO- -DO-
ADDL.4. HARIDAS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN NAIR,
-DO- -DO-
ADDL.5. PRAKASH, S/O.CHELLAPPAN NAIR,
-DO- -DO-
(SUPPLEMENTAL PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL
HEIRS OF THE DECEASED FIRST PETITIONER, AS PER ORDER DATED
23/7/2014 IN IA.NO.1580/14 IN CRP.NO.731/2008)
BY ADVS.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
SRI.S.SUJIN
RESPONDENT(S):
------------------
1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD.
2. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD.
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF
SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER FOR REVENUE SMT.SUSEELA.R.BHAT.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V.CHITAMBARESH, J.
---------------------
C.R.P.No.731 of 2008
---------------------
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2014
O R D E R
The claim put in under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) was not considered by the Taluk Land Board on account of Circular No.LB(2)- 11875/96 dated 1.4.2008 issued by the Secretary, Land Board, Thiruvananthapuram. But that Circular has been quashed by this Court in Pashupathy Namboodiri v. State of Kerala [2008 (4) KLT 163] whereby the Taluk Land Boards were directed to consider the claim under Section 7E of the Act. Claim under Section 7E of the Act is in respect of assignment of parcels of land by Document Nos.167/85, 106/73, 1620/75 and 128/82. A total extent of about 3.695 acres of land had been so sold by the declarant to various persons.
2. The Taluk Land Board has to consider whether the claims under Section 7E of the Act deserve to be allowed granting exemption on the basis of deemed tenancies. There is no necessity in law that such deemed tenants should have obtained certificates of title under Section 106 B of the Act before moving the CRP.No.731of 2008 2 Taluk Land Board. Even the declarant can bring this fact to the notice of the Taluk Land Board which is bound to consider the claim of deemed tenancy. That much extent of land covered by the deemed tenancy (if upheld) is liable to be excluded from the account of the declarant. The Taluk Land Board has not applied its mind in the case on hand as regards the claim under Section 7E of the Act.
3. Yet another aspect is the conclusion of a civil litigation between the declarant and his brother culminating in SA.No.174/1990 and SA.No.531/1990. The petitioner contends that declarant has been found entitled only to 2.46 acres of land from the property involved in the civil suit. The petitioners lament that larger extent of land has been included in his account (which has ofcourse to be limited to that covered by the decree in SA.Nos.174/90 and 531/90). That is a matter to be considered by the Taluk Land Board as per the proviso to Section 85(1) of the Act as regards the extent available. The liability to surrender excess land shall be considered afresh in the light of Sections 7E and 85(1) of the Act. The Taluk CRP.No.731of 2008 3 Land Board shall also consider whether the transactions are hit by the proviso to Section 84(4) of the Act and intended to defeat the ceiling provisions.
4. The parties shall appear before the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad on 27.10.2014. The Taluk Land Board shall issue notice to the interested parties and complete the proceedings within 5 months therefrom. The impugned order of the Taluk Land Board is set aside for this limited purpose.
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
Sd/-
V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.
nj.