Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.36 seconds)Section 7E in Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Rajeev vs The District Collector on 23 May, 2014
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.
State Of Kerala Represented By vs Thomas Kurian on 26 September, 2012
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.
Chacko Chummar vs Taluk Land Board on 19 October, 2007
6. 9 acres out of 11 acres was sold by the
declarant even one year prior to the revised order of
the Taluk Land Board dated 29.8.1978. The Taluk Land
Board had treated 11 acres (including 9 acres) as
rubber plantation while granting exemption. It is
bewildering as to how the proceedings under Section 87
of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 could be initiated
against the declarant who has already parted with his
property for consideration. The proceedings under
Section 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 have
been initiated only after 27 years from the date of
alienation. Where there has been actual conversion of
the rubber plantation itself is a moot question to be
addressed by the Taluk Land Board. There has not been
any wanton or deliberate act by the declarant in the
rubber plants being lost by fire. The concept of
CRP.Nos.100,119 & 179 of 2013
6
conversion has to be decided in the context of the
decision in Chacko Varghese v. Taluk Land Board [1982
KLT 72].
1