IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 CRP.No. 1356 of 2004() ---------------------- SM.1576/1985 of TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: DECLARANTS: ----------------------------- 1. P.R. CHAMUNNI, S/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNAN CHOODAN HOUSE, PULIKKULAM, PALLATHERI ELAPPULLY II VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. P.R. KANDUNNI, S/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNAN DO. DO. 3. KALADHARAN, S/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNAN, DO. DO. 4. P.R. KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNAN, DO. DO. 5. P.R. PANCHALI, D/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNAN, DO. DO. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1&2SRI. SHYSON P. MANGUZHA THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NO.3551 OF 2004 IN C.R.P. NO. 1356 OF 2004. DISMISSED 11.7.2008 Sd/-(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 1356 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008 O R D E R The revision petitioners are the legal heirs of the declarant in S.M. No.1576 of 1985 on the file of the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad. By order dated 30.3.2004, the Taluk Land Board directed the legal heirs of the declarant to surrender 0.45 acres of land in Survey No.35 B/11 of Elapully II Village, being held in excess of the ceiling limit. 2. The grievance of the revision petitioners are two-fold. Firstly, according to the legal heirs of the declarant an extent of 30 cents of land in Survey No.114/1 of Elaplully II Village which was included in the account of the declarant comes under exempted category under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and, therefore, liable to be deleted from the account. Moreover, according to them, the said property is not included in the account of the declarant in the draft statement and that it was included in the account of the declarant without notice to the declarant or his legal heirs. It is contended that it is C.R.P. NO.1356/2004 2 now known under what proceedings the said property was included in the account of the assessee. It is also submitted that the said property belongs to a third person and it was included in another ceiling case, C.C. No.387 of 1973, initiated against one Madhavi. In the above proceedings, the Taluk Land Board granted exemption to the property in question being a house site. Secondly, the revision petitioners contended that they were not given an opportunity to file their option statement consequent to the order passed by the Taluk Land Board directing them to surrender 0.45 acres of land. According to them, the property now sought to be taken over is their last choice, being the land lying adjacent to their residential house. They contended that whatever excess land they are liable to surrender will be surrendered only in accordance with the option to be exercised by them. 3. It is seen that no opportunity was given to the revision petitioners to exercise their option. The contention raised by the revision petitioners with regard to the 30 cents of land in Survey No.114/1 of Elaplully II Village deserves to be considered. If the said property is not included in the draft statement, the declarant would lose an opportunity to file objection after inclusion or non-inclusion of such property in his account. According to the revision petitioners, only when a copy of the impugned C.R.P. NO.1356/2004 3 order was received by them did they come to know that the said property was included in the account of the assessee. It is pointed out by the revision petitioners that the same property was included in the account of one Madhavi in the ceiling case initiated against her and that the same was excluded from her account and hence there is no justification for inclusion of the property in the account of the assessee. The very fact that the property is a house site shows that it is liable to be exempted under Section 81 of the Act. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners also brought to my notice the copy of the draft statement issued to Smt. Madhavi in C.C. No.387 of 1973 on the file of the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad. The learned counsel also contended that the Taluk Land Board failed to afford an opportunity to the revision petitioners to exercise their option. Since both these contentions are very seriously urged, I am of the view that the Taluk Land Board should examine these questions. The matter was not decided on merits for the reason that the application under Section 85(8) of the Act was not maintainable. Whatever be the provisions quoted by the parties, if some error has occurred in the order, it is the duty of the Taluk Land Board to correct the error either suo moto or at the instance of the parties. Hence, the order under challenge is set aside and C.R.P. NO.1356/2004 4 the matter is remitted to the Taluk Land Board for fresh consideration. The Taluk Land Board shall reconsider the question and pass appropriate orders based on the observations made above within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C.R.P. NO.1356/2004 5 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P. NO. 1356/2004 O R D E R 11th July, 2008