IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1384 of 2010(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ELSY PULIKKOTIL W/O.CHACKO, PALATHUMKADAVU, THALASSERRY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT 2. MARY ANTHRAYOSE, W/O. ANTHRAYOSE, THOTTUPURATH, THALASSERRY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. JOSE PANOOSE, S/O. PANOOSE, THEKKUMPURATH THALASSERRY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. JOSEPH PADAYATTUKUNNEL, S/O.JOSEPH,THEKKUMPURATH THALASSERRY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. SABU THOTTATHIL, S/O. JOSEPH, THEKKUMPURATH, THALASSERRY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, THALASSERRY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY G.P. SHRI P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 1384 of 2010-W - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioners are seeking for a direction to the third respondent Land Tribunal to pass final orders on Ext.P3 series applications in terms of the power conferred under Section 106(B)(2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 2. The petitioners claim that they are small and marginal holders of agricultural land in Ayyampuzha Village, Thalasery taluk and the properties claimed by them are in their possession for more than three decades. 3. The Taluk Land Board, Thalassery, in proceedings against one Shri V.J. Chacko, ordered surrender of 73.39.50 acres of land in Sy. No.1293 of Aralam Village. Even though the petitioners filed applications under Section 85(8) of the Act, they were dismissed. The Taluk Land Board later passed a revised order directing the declarant to surrender an extent of 55.89.500 acres of land. The same was under challenge in O.P.No.11942/2001 and an interim order was passed initially. Later, it was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that in spite of Ext.P2 judgment wpc1384 /2010 2 wherein direction was issued to consider the claim under Section 7E of the Act, no action is being taken by the Land Tribunal. 5. Ext.P3 series are the applications filed by the petitioners. It is further pointed out that it is mainly in the light of Exts.P6 and P7 communications issued by the Government and the Land Board Secretary that no action is being taken. Ext.P6 is the letter dated 23.5.2008 of the Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department to all the District Collectors and Chairmans of the Taluk Land Boards directing to keep the operation of Section 7E in abeyance until further orders. By Ext.P7, the Secretary, State Land Board directed the Chairmans of the Land Boards not to take action in respect of cases involving Section 7E of the Act. 6. It is pointed out that Ext.P6 has already been quashed by this Court in Institute of Brothers of St. Gabriel v. State of Kerala (2008 (4) KLT 631). The petitioners therefore seek for a direction to the Land Tribunal to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Govt. Pleader. Section 7E of the Act is introduced by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005. Section 106B(2) of the Act provides that “the Land Tribunal shall, within a period of six months from the date of application, pass orders thereon after verifying the records as it may deem fit and where the application is allowed, issue a certificate of title in such wpc1384 /2010 3 manner as may be prescribed.” In terms of sub-section (1) of Section 106B, the petitioners have approached the Land Tribunal. 8. In Institute of Brothers’ case (2008 (4) KLT 631), this Court quashed Ext.P6 on the ground that the Government cannot direct the District Collectors and other quasi judicial authorities not to exercise the powers under Section 7E of the Act and to ignore the same. This Court held as follows: “Once therefore Section 7E was inserted in the Principal Act, it becomes law. It is inconceivable for the Government to direct, not only the District Collectors in the State but also the quasi judicial authorities otherwise constituted under Sections 99 and 100 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act not to exercise the powers under Section 7E of the Land Reforms Act and to ignore as it were, a provision in the Land Reforms Act.” In the light of the above, Exts.P6 and P7 cannot survive. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the third respondent Land Tribunal is directed to proceed with Ext.P3 series applications and dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, wpc1384 /2010 4 Judge.) kav/