Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing Rajeev vs The District Collector on 23 May, 2014

State Of Kerala vs A.K.Abdul Latheef on 20 January, 2021

4. This Court in Rajeev v. District Collector [ 2014 (4) KLT 209] has held that the grant of a certificate of title under Section 106 B of the Act by the Land Tribunal is not sine qua non to get the benefit of deemed tenancy under Section 7E of the Act. There is therefore no necessity for the petitioners to obtain a certificate of title from the Land Tribunal which can also be superfluous after having admitted the claim under Section 7E of the Act. I should note that the State unsuccessfully challenged Ext. P3 order in C.R.P.(L.R.). No. 564/2014 on the file of this Court. The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed by order dated 11.12.2014 on the premise that the order impugned was not final. It is W.A.No. 154/2021 :6: true that Rules under Section 106 B of the Act have been framed subsequently regulating the grant of certificate of title by the Land Tribunal. There is no reason as to why the benefit of deemed tenancy under Section 7E of the Act shall not be extended to the petitioners.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S P Chaly - Full Document

K.Kamalam vs The Taluk Land Board

7. The applicability of Section 7E of the act shall also be considered in the light of the dictum laid down in Rajeev v. District Collector [2014 (4) KLT 209] and State of Kerala v. Thomas Kurian [2014 (4) KLT 417]. It has been held thereunder that the grant of a certificate of title under Section 106 B of the Act is not a sine qua non for the Taluk Land Board to consider the claim under Section 7E of the Act. The petitioners in these Civil Revision Petitions as well as the legal heirs of the declarant shall be put on CRP.Nos.203,215 & 262 of 2010 7 notice before final orders are passed. Every endeavour shall be made to pass final orders within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - V Chitambaresh - Full Document

K.K.Viswanathan vs State Of Kerala

2. The first point contended by the legal heirs of the declarant is as regards the applicability of Section 7E of the C.R.P. Nos. 337 of 2010 & 265 of 2011 2 Act. It is stated that an extent of 56 cents in R.S. No. 89/5 was sold by the legal heirs of the declarant to one Mohammadkutty under Document No. 1884/82. Another extent of 44 cents in R.S. No. 167/18 was sold by the wife of the declarant to Kodakkattakath Yakoob under Document No. 1304/1996. It is the contention of the legal heirs of the declarant that the above total extent of 1 acre is liable to be excluded under Section 7E of the Act. The Taluk Land Board has passed the impugned order treating the alienations as invalid being done after 01.01.1970. I do feel that the applicability of Section 7E of the Act has to be reconsidered in regard to the above two transactions as per law. The same shall be done in the wake of the decisions in Rajeev v. District Collector [2014 (4) KLT 209] and State of Kerala v. Thomas Kurian [2014 (4) KLT 417].
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - V Chitambaresh - Full Document

* P.Kunhiraman Nair vs The Taluk Land Board

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.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - V Chitambaresh - Full Document

K.B.Mujitha Bai vs State Of Kerala

4. This Court in Rajeev v. District Collector [ 2014 (4) KLT 209] has held that the grant of a certificate of title under Section 106 B of the Act by the Land Tribunal is not sine qua non to get the benefit of deemed tenancy under Section 7E of the Act. There is therefore no necessity for the petitioners to obtain a certificate of title from the Land Tribunal which can also be superfluous after having admitted the claim under Section 7E of the Act. I should note that the State W.P.(C). NO. 14514 OF 2015 4 unsuccessfully challenged Ext. P3 order in C.R.P.(L.R.). No. 564/2014 on the file of this Court. The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed by order dated 11.12.2014 on the premise that the order impugned was not final. It is true that Rules under Section 106 B of the Act have been framed subsequently regulating the grant of certificate of title by the Land Tribunal. There is no reason as to why the benefit of deemed tenancy under Section 7E of the Act shall not be extended to the petitioners.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - V Chitambaresh - Full Document

Abdul Kareem vs State Of Kerala on 12 November, 2025

2. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Rajeev v. District Collector [2014(4)KLT 209] has held that the extent of land (in respect of which the claim under Section 7E of the Act is upheld) would be deleted from the account of the declarant and it would bring down the surrendarable liability and therefore declarant is as much concerned as the claimant when a claim under Section 7E of the Act is made.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - T R Ravi - Full Document

Bindu K.R vs State Of Kerala on 8 December, 2025

The order dated 16.11.2012 in SM No.375/1978 passed by the Taluk Land Board, Chittur is set aside in so far 2025:KER:94751 CRP(LR) NO. 121 OF 2013 7 it relates to the petitioners. The Taluk Land Board shall reconsider the applications submitted by the petitioners in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Rajeev's case (supra) and Fr.Xavier Karuvallil's case (supra) and pass fresh orders. Since the issue has been pending for past several years, it is expected that the Taluk Land Board will be able to complete the proceedings within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Registry shall return the records to the Taluk Board immediately.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - T R Ravi - Full Document

Velluva Chathoth Janaki Amma vs Smt.K.E.Devaki Amma on 15 October, 2014

There has not been a proper consideration of the claim made by the petitioners under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (the 'Act' for short). The grant of a certificate of title under Section 106B of the Act by the Land Tribunal is not a sine qua non to claim the benefit of deemed tenancy under Section 7E of the Act. The pre-requisites for claiming the benefit of Section 7E of the Act has been detailed in Rajeev v. District Collector [2014 (4) KLT 209].
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V Chitambaresh - Full Document

Annie James vs Taluk Land Board on 27 October, 2014

2. The grant of a certificate of title under Section 106B of the Act is not a sine qua non to consider the claim under Section 7E of the Act. The law in this regard is laid down in Rajeev v. District Collector [2014 (4) KLT 209]. However the question whether the ceiling case can be re-opened under Section 84(4) of the Act is important. The petitioners point out that they are transferees for consideration from the legal heirs of the declarant.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - V Chitambaresh - Full Document

Kannan @ Govindaswamy vs State Of Kerala

The identity of excess lands ordered to be surrendered by the Taluk Land Board as per the order impugned does not take in the land allegedly taken assignment of by the revision petitioner from the declarant. Therefore it is not necessary for the Taluk Land Board to consider the claim of the revision petitioner under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (the 'Act' for short) on the basis of the sale deed (Document No. 1291/1974) allegedly executed in his favour by the declarant. The revision petitioner is free to pursue his claim under Section 106B of the Act for the issue of a certificate of title by the Land Tribunal (after the Rules are framed) for which the impugned order of the Taluk Land Board would not be an impediment. The Land Tribunal shall advert to the decisions in Rajeev v. District Collector [2014(4) KLT 209] and State of Kerala v. Thomas Kurian [2014(4) KLT 417] as and when motion is made in that regard.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V Chitambaresh - Full Document
1   2 Next