Kerala High Court
Karuvoth Abdulla vs State Of Kerala on 10 September, 2012
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/19TH BHADRA 1934
CRP.No. 1323 of 2002 ( )
------------------------
TLB.Q.4/1996 of TALUK LAND BOARD, QUILANDY
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/CLAIM PETITIONERS::
-----------------------------------------
1. KARUVOTH ABDULLA, S/O. AMMAD, PAYYATH HOUSE,
VILAYATTOOR, PAYYOLI, KOZHIKODE DIST.
2. SOUFIA, W/O. ABDULLA,POYYATH HOUSE,
VILAYATTOOR,PAYYOLI, KOZHIKODE DIST.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S)/TALUK LAND BOARD AND ASSESSEE::
---------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT.OF KERALA
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE CHAIRMAN,
TALUK LAND BOARD, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
3. PUTHALATH BEEVI UMMA,
PUTHALATH HOUSE, VILAYATTUR AMSOM,ELAMBILAD DESOM
KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
4. SUHARA,
D/O. LATE PUTHALATH KUNHAMMAD, PUTHALATH HOUSE
VALAYATTUR AMSOM, ELAMBILAD DESOM, KOYILANDY
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
5. ABDUL RAZAK,
S/O. PUTHALATH KUNHAMMAD, PUTHALATH HOUSE
VALAYATTUR AMSOM, ELAMBILAD DESOM,KOYILANDY TALUK
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
6. ASHARAF, S/O. PUTHALATH KUNHAMMAD,
PUTHALATH HOUSE, VALATTUR AMSOM, ELAMBILAD DESOM
KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
7. SUBAIDA, D/O. PUTHALATH KUNHAMMAD,
PUTHALATH HOUSE, VALAYATTUR AMSOM,ELAMBILAD DESOM
KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN
BY ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY
BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY ADV. SRI.CHERIAN VARGHESE
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CRP No. 1323 OF 2002
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 10th day of September, 2012
O R D E R
The petitioners, husband and wife, assails the proceedings of the Taluk Land Board, Koyilandy dated 15.6.2002, by which their claim over 23 = cents of land; which was directed to be surrendered as excess land of one Puthalath Kunhammad of Kozhukkallur Village, Koyilandy Taluk; was declined. The transfer of land to the petitioners during the years 1984 and 1987 was held to be hit by Section 84 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'KLR Act') and the petitioners' claim under Section 85(8) of the Act was rejected.
2. Originally, the ceiling case of Sri.Puthalath Kunhammad of Kozhukkallur village, was proceeded with by the Taluk Land Board, Koyilandy as per order No. TLB(Q)4/96 dt.21.12.2000. Sri. Puthalath Kunhammad was held to be holding land in excess of the KLR Act to the extent of 23 = cents of land. The revision petitioners herein had purchased a total extent of 1acre 25 = cents in R.S No.86/1 of Vilayathur CRP 1323/2002 : 2 : Desom by registered assignment deed Nos.1724/1984 and 2049/87 of S.R.O Meppayur. The vendor was the legal heirs of Puthalath Kunhammad, against whom the ceiling proceedings were initiated by the Taluk Land Board by the above referred order.
3. On the direction of the Taluk Land Board, 23 = cents outs of 1 acre 25 = cents in the possession of the petitioners were sought to be taken over in pursuance to the order passed against Puthalath Kunhammad. It was in such circumstances that the revision petitioner herein approached the Taluk Land Board with an application under Section 85(8) of the KLR Act. The Taluk Land Board having considered the application filed by the revision petitioners and having gone through the assignment deeds registered in the years 1984 and 1987 found that the transfers are hit by Section 84 of the KLR Act. This finding cannot at all be assailed. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would, contend that the original proceedings issued against Puthalath Kunhammad, even after his death was challenged by his legal heirs, more particularly his wife, and the same had ended in the Taluk Land Board's CRP 1323/2002 : 3 : order passed against the said Puthalath Kunhammad being set aside by order in CRP No.1907 of 2001.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed before me the order in the above CRP. I have also looked into the Judges papers of the said CRP. On looking into the order it is seen that the same was filed by the wife of Sri. Puthalath Kunhammad against the order in TLB(Q) 4/1996 of the Taluk Land Board, Koyilandy. The contention advanced by the revision petitioner in CRP No.1907 of 2001 was that, in determining 23.5 cents of land as excess lands under the KLR Act, the Taluk Land Board treated 36< cents out of 70< cents as garden land planted with coconut trees and not as a single crop wet land as contended by the assessee. It was only since the said lands were considered as garden land, the family of the assessee consisting of seven members and entitled to 12 standard acres; was held by the Taluk Land Board to have excess land to the extent of 23.5 cents. This Court in CRP No.1907 of 2001 noticed the report of the authorised officer, the Special Deputy Tahsildar, that the age of the coconut trees in the said land was in the range of 10 to 20 years. As on 1.1.1970 it was the report of the authorised officer that the CRP 1323/2002 : 4 : 36< cents was single crop paddy land. This Court relying on the report of the authorised officer, found that it lends credence to the contention raised on behalf of the revision petitioner therein. The document under which the acquisition was made after 1.1.1970, the village records and even the report of the authorised officer, was held to be describing the 36< cents out of the 70< cents as a single crop paddy land. Subsequent conversion of wet land into a coconut garden, it was held cannot be given any significance in examining the question of surplus land by way of the acquisition proposed as on 1.1.1970. It was held that the nature of the land as on the date of acquisition of such land is material and not its conversion later to a different category of land. Section 87 also would show that the proceedings initiated under the KLR Act, should be on the basis of the category of the land as it was on the date of acquisition and a subsequent conversion cannot at all be taken into account. On the basis of such findings this Court found that the total extent of the property held by the assessee's family, i.e, the family of Puthalath Kunhammad, consisting of seven members is less than 12 standard acres as provided under CRP 1323/2002 : 5 : Section 82(1)(c) of the KLR Act. In the result, the impugned order of the Taluk Land Board directing surrender of 23.5 cents of land was set aside. It is that order which is referred as item No. 1 in the impugned order. The impugned order stands on the basis of the order passed against Puthalath Kunhammad. The order directing the surrender of excess lands coming to 23.5 cents of Puthalath Kunhammad having been set aside in CRP No.1907 of 2001, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order has no legs to stand on.
The Civil Revision Petition is hence allowed setting aside the impugned order. No costs.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)
jma //true copy//
P.A to Judge