IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 CRP.No. 335 of 1998(D) SM.931/1978 OF TALUK LAND BOARD, THALASSERY REVN. PETITIONER: 1. STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.L.SAJEEV RESPONDENTS: 1. VALLUVA KALLIANI AMMA, D/O.KUNHAPPA NAMBIAR, W/O.LATE GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, PAZHASSI AMSOM, KUZHIKKAL DESOM. 2. PUTHUSSERI CHANDUKUTTY NAMBIAR, S/O.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR AND MAKKAM ALIAS CHIRUTHAI AMMA, MADATHIKUNDU, THOLAMBRA VILLAGE. 3. THERAMBATH VEETTIL MUNDAYADAN AMMALU AMMA, W/O.KUNHAPPA, -DO- -DO- 4. SATHEESAN, S/O.AMMALU AMMA, -DO- -DO- 5. SARASWATHI, D/O.AMMALU AMMA, -DO- -DO- 6. SANJAYAN, S/O.AMMALU AMMA, -DO- -DO- 7. SAJEEVAN, S/O.AMMALU AMMA,KUNDAMKUNNU VILLAGE. 8. ELEPPAYIL CHIRUTHAI AMMA, W/O.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR. 9. SATHI, D/O.CHIRUTHAI AMMA, PAZHASSI AMSOM, ELUKKUZHI DESOM. 10. RAMESAN, S/O. -DO- -DO- 11. KARTHIYANI, D/O.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, PAZHASSI VILLAGE. 12. NARAYANI, -DO- -DO- 13. PERINGALI CHIRUTHAI AMMA, SIVAPURAM VILLAGE. C.R.P.NO.335 OF 1998 :: 2 :: 14. MAVILA ROHINI AMMA, S/O.NARAYANAN, SIVAPURAM. 15. RAJAN, S/O.ROHINI AMMA, -DO- -DO- 16. RADHAMONY, D/O. -DO- -DO- 17. RAVINDRAN, S/O. -DO- -DO- 18. SATHEESAN, S/O. -DO- -DO- 19. PERINGALI PADMANABHAN, MURIKKAL VEEDU, SIVAPURAM, KANHILERI. 20. P.V.PREMAVALLI, W/O.GOVINDAN, SIVAPURAM HOUSE, KADAMBUR, KADACHIRA. 21. PERINGALI JANARDHANAN, S/O.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, THOLAMBRA VILLAGE. 22. KOMALA VALLI, D/O.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, THOLAMBRA VILLAGE. 23. MUNDAYADAN JANAKI AMMA, MEETHALAPOIL.P.O. URUVACHAL, PAZHASSI. 24. MUNDAYADAN DEVAKI AMMA, W/O.RAJAN, PAZHASSI, KUZHIKKAL. 25. MOHANAN, S/O.JANAKI AMMA, PAZHASSI, ELAKUZHI. 26. BHASKARAN, S/O.JANAKI AMMA, PAZHASSI, ELAKUZHI. 27. PUZHAPAVALLI, D/O.JANAKI AMMA, PAZHASSI. 28. RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR, S/O.LAKSHMI AMMA, CHOSHAN VEEDU, KUZHIKKAL, URUVACHAL, PAZHASSI VILLAGE. 29. ANIYERI KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, KANNOTH, KAYANI, PAZHASSI VILLAGE. 30. ALAVOOR SARASWATHI AMMA, PAZHASSI AMSOM, KUZHIKKAL DESOM. 31. KAKKUNNATH KADER, KUZHIKKAL, PAZHASSI VILLAGE. 32. KOVVAL AYAMMED, KUZHIKKAL PAZHASSI VILLAGE. 33. MHERLAT KUNHAMMED, -DO- -DO- 34. CHOORIYOT MARIYAM, W/O.KUNHAMMED, -DO- -DO- 35. M.V.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, S/O.SANKARAN NAMBIAR, ADVOCATE, PARAPATTA HOUSE, THIRUVANGAD AMSOM, KAVUMBHAGAM DESOM. C.R.P.NO.335 OF 1998 :: 3 :: 36. ANNAKUTTY CHERUPARAMBIL HOUSE, THOLAMBRA VILLAGE. 37. VADAKKEKARA THRESSIA, W/O.KURIAKOSE, KOTTUMANGA DESOM. 38. K.K.BALAN NAMBIAR, S/O.KANNAN NAMBIAR, KAYANI, PAZHASSI VILLAGE. 39. M.C.RAJAN, VENGAYIL HOUSE, -DO- -DO- 40. CHENNISSERI NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, -DO- 41. KUNHAMMED, ALAPARAMBIL, -DO- 42. PUTHALON KUNNOTH RAMUNNI, KAYANI. 43. P.M.KARTHIYAYANI AMMA, KEEZHALLUR KARA. 44. NAMATH NITTOOR RAJAN, PAZHASSI, KUZHIKKAL. 45. PARAKADAVAN BALAKRISHNAN, KARETT. 46. C.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, S/O.KUTTI RAMAN NAMBIAR, MUNDORPOIL. (THROUGH THE TAHSILDAR, THALASSERY FOR SERVICE AND RETURN). 47. GOPALAN NAIR, KUYILOOR VILLAGE, TALIPARAMBA. 48. PURUSHOTHAMAN, KUYILOOR VILLAGE, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 49. MEENAKSHI AMMA, -DO- -DO- 50. NARAYANAN, -DO- -DO- 51. GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, -DO- -DO- 52. NARAYANAN, -DO- -DO- 53. VASU, KUYILOOR VILLAGE, TALIPARAMBA TALUK (THROUGH THE TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA FOR S & R) R29 TO 34, 39, 40, 41 AND 42 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN R2 BY ADV.SRI.P.V.MADHAVAN NAMBIAR R43 BY ADV.SRI.K.P.SARVOTHAMANAN SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR R23 AND R28 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER R35 BY ADV.SRI.M.SASINDRAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR R3, 4, 11 AND 12 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRAN SMT.M.SUJITHA 0 R47, 50 AND 51 BY ADV.SRI.M.SASIDHARAN R35 BY ADV.SRI.M.SASINDRAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ C.R.P. NO. 335 OF 1998 D ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 O R D E R The State challenges the order dated 25.6.1996 passed by the Taluk Land Board, Thalassery, by which, the Taluk Land Board held that the declarant is not liable to surrender any excess land. The declarant is Chalil Puthiyaveettil Mundayadan Govindan Nambiar. He died on 14.7.1992. He had three wives and several children. The Taluk Land Board found that as on 1.1.1970, the family of the declarant was holding 32.79 acres and after 1.1.1970, the family acquired 2 acres and 4.5 cents. The Taluk Land Board also found that during the period from 1965 to 1991, the declarant disposed of a great extent of his properties by registered documents to various persons. Those persons were also impleaded in the proceedings before the Taluk Land Board. 2. The Taluk Land Board, by the final order, held that after granting exemption for 5.77 acres, the net area in the possession of the declarant's family would be 9.25 acres. Therefore, it was held C.R.P. NO.335 OF 1998 D :: 2 :: that the family of the declarant is not liable to surrender any excess land. 3. In the Revision, challenge is made against exemption of 5.77 acres. It is also contended that the Taluk Land Board was not justified in relying on the second report submitted by the authorised officer and in not considering the first report made by the authorised officer. 4. Even on the finding made by the Taluk Land Board that the declarant assigned various extents of land by registered documents during the period from 1965 to 1991 to various persons, I do not think that a fresh consideration of the case by the Taluk Land Board would be feasible at this stage, since Section 7E was introduced in the Land Reforms Act. Section 7E protects certain assignments after the appointed day made by persons having excess land. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that it would be proper and just to issue notice to all the assignees and to direct the Taluk Land Board to consider the matter afresh, in a case where the Taluk Land Board has found that the declarant is not holding any excess land. The main grievance by the State is against the order C.R.P. NO.335 OF 1998 D :: 3 :: granting exemption to certain extent of land. Even if that contention is accepted, if the assignees are entitled to the benefit of Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, again the result would be that the Taluk Land Board has to hold that the declarant is not liable to surrender any excess land. A futile exercise is not necessary, particularly in the light of the amendment introduced in the Land Reforms Act incorporating Section 7E. For the forgoing reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 335 OF 1998 D O R D E R 27th January, 2011 -------------------------------------------