IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 151 of 2008() --------------------- LB.335/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- BHASKARA DAS ,KUTTIKKATTE VARKKOLIL, POLPULLI,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SMT.R.MEERA RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TALUK LAND BOARD PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. NEELAVATHY,W/O.RAMASWAMY UDAYAR, KOTTIKKODE, VERKOLI, POLPULLY-PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 151 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 20thday of February, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad, in LB 335/73 dated 28.12.07. This case has been shuttling down between the land board and this court on so many occasions and still I feel the said process has not ended. This court as per the orders in CRP 2387/97 and CRP 2384/97 has set aside the order of the Taluk Land Board and directed the Taluk Land Board to consider whether the gift claimed is valid and whether the claim raised on behalf of the trust is acceptable. So far as question of trust is concerned, appearance was entered into and enumerable number of documents was produced and argument notes were submitted, which is seen referred to in paragraph 3 of the order. 2. After mentioning about the decisions cited, the land board came to the conclusion “the above statement of the counsel is not applicable under KLR Act.” I feel such an approach is totally erroneous and the Taluk Land Board is bound to consider the C.R.P. NO.151/08 2 question of trust in the light of the legal principles laid down by various courts and this court on the subject and therefore, the order suffers from serious infirmity. So far as question of gift is concerned, the Taluk Land Board held that in its earlier order it has rejected the gift as invalid and no other evidence has been adduced by the declarant to prove the claim. 3. I am afraid this also is a totally an erroneous approach. It was by setting aside that order, the court directed the Taluk Land Board to consider the question of gift afresh. Instead of applying the legal principles including amendment to Section 84(1)(2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, the Board has reiterated its view which had been set aside by this court. Therefore the order of remand passed by this court has not been complied with by the Taluk Land Board. Therefore the matter requires interference even at the admission stage itself. I have brought it to the notice of the learned Government Pleader and as she is helpless for want of instructions she could not state the facts elaborately. 4. Since the order suffers from serious infirmity, I set aside the order of the Taluk Land Board and remit the matter back to the Taluk Land Board for fresh consideration with a positive direction to C.R.P. NO.151/08 3 consider the points referred to by this court in its earlier CRP and pass a considered order, after hearing both sides, and not to dispose of the matter in a light hearted fashion. Taluk Land Board is directed to issue notice to the legal representatives of the deceased declarant and others by registered post with acknowledgment due and fix a hearing date. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. NO.151/08 4