IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 CRP.No. 208 of 2004() --------------------- TLB.38/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, HOSDRUG .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ----------------------------- MUNDAKATH JANAKI AMMA, W/O. DECEASED KOYYAN KUNHIKKANNAN, KODAKKAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, HOSDURG. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, HOSDURG TALUK. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. THOMAS JOHN AMBUKAN FOR R1 & R3 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NO. 485 OF 2004 IN C.R.P. NO.208 OF 2004. DISMISSED 29.5.2008 Sd/-(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 208 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Taluk Land Board, Hosdurg dated 19.12.2000. The revision petitioner is the widow of the declarant Koyyan Kunhikannan. By the order of the Taluk Land Board dated 13.8.1991, the declarant was directed to surrender 10.65 acres of land as excess land in different survey numbers. The above order was challenged in revision and this Court as per order in C.R.P. No.1641 of 1991 set aside the same and remitted the case for fresh consideration. After remand, the Taluk land Board by order dated 9.5.1995 redetermined the extent of land to be surrendered and refixed the excess land as 7.98 acres. Pursuant to the said order, the declarant surrendered 6.39 acres of land and the balance to be surrendered is 1.59 acres. The declarant opted to surrender 1.59 acres in R.S.No. 70/1F of West Eleri Village. In the meanwhile three claim petitions were filed under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter C.R.P. NO.208/2004 2 referred to as "the Act") claiming right and title over 90 cents of property (30 cents each) in R.S. No.70/1F. On receipt of the claim petitions, an authorised officer was deputed to enquire into the matter and to file a report. The authorised officer as per his report dated 12.2.1998 reported that the three claimants are in possession of 90 cents of land in R.S. No.70/1F and that they had obtained purchase certificates as per orders in S.M. No. 216 of 1982, S.M. No.217 of 1982 and O.A. No.2513 of 1975 of the Land Tribunal, Kannur. The authorised officer also reported that the declarant did not hold any property in R.S. No.70/1F that there was a mistake in the survey number and that the correct survey number is R.S. No.70/1.C2 of Beemanady Village. He also recommended to exclude the 90 cents of land held by the tenants. It is also submitted that inspite of the report of the authorised officer, the Taluk Land Board passed orders wrongly rejecting the claim petitions and directing the Tahsildar to take possession of 1.59 acres of land from R.S. No.70/1.C2 of Beemanadi Village (Old West Eleri Village) from the possession of the legal heirs of the declarant. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended before me that the option to surrender the property from R.S. No.70/1.C2 ought to have been considered by the Taluk Land Board and that the C.R.P. NO.208/2004 3 direction to take possession of land from the direct possession of the legal heirs of the delcarant is illegal. Counsel further submitted that having found that the property in R.S. No.70/1.C2 is owned and held by the declarant, there was no justification in not accepting the option and taking possession of the said land. 3. On going through the impugned order, I find that the reasons stated for rejecting the claim petitions are also not proper. The claim petitioners admittedly obtained purchase certificates during 1975and 1982 from the competent Land Tribunal. The purchase certificates issued by the Land Tribunal in favour of the petitioners who filed the petitions under Section 85(8) of the Act is a positive proof of their claim for tenancy rights. Further, so long as the declarant had consistently taken the stand that he wanted to surrender the property in R.S. No.70/1.C2 which was accounted in his name, it was the duty of the Taluk Land Board to take possession of the land as pointed out by the declarant. The Taluk Land Board cannot say that they will take possession of the properties which are in their direct possession. Having found that the property opted by the declarant is his property, there was no justification in rejecting his option and taking other lands. C.R.P. NO.208/2004 4 4. The revision petitioner has produced before this Court Sale Deed No.1141 of 1995 dated 18.3.1995 of S.R.O. Thrikkarippur executed by a member of the statutory family in favour of one Raveendran. The extent of land conveyed is 1.46 acres in R.S. No.113/1 of Kodakkad Village. According to him, the property covered by the above transaction is exempted under Section 84(4) of the Act. 5. In the above circumstances, the first thing to be considered by the Taluk Land Board is whether the claim petitions are liable to be allowed and whether 90 cents of land is liable to be excluded from the account of the declarant. If the Taluk Land Board finds that the claim petitions are to be allowed, the declarant is liable to surrender only the balance extent out of the total extent of 1.59 acres. Either the balance extent or the entire extent of 1.59, as the case may be, shall be taken possession of as opted by the declarant. The Taluk Land Board shall reconsider the claim of tenancy of Section 85(8) petitioners afresh after issuing notice to them and affording them an opportunity to substantiate their case. The contention of the revision petitioner with regard to Sale Deed No.1141 of 1995 shall also be considered by the Taluk Land Board. The Taluk Land Board shall dispose of the claim petitions and also take a decision on the grievance of the declarant within a period of six months C.R.P. NO.208/2004 5 from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. 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.208/2004 6 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P. NO. 208/2004 O R D E R 29th MAY, 2008