IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 CRP.No. 5 of 2010() ------------------- CC TLB.239/TPY/2009 of TALUK LAND BOARD, TALAPPALLY .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------- 1. MUHAMMED, S/O. KUNHAUDAL, KODAVANPARAMBIL VADAKKETHIL HOUE, KOTTACHIRA AMSOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALGHAT DISTRICT. 2. NABEESA, W/O. BAPPU ALIAS PAREEKKUTTY, KODAVANPARAMBIL VADAKKETHIL HOUSE, KOTTACHIRA AMSOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALGHAT DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------ 1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, THALAPPILLY, AYYANTHOLE, TRICHUR-3. 2. THAHSILDAR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, P.O.WADAKKANCHERY, TRICHUR DIST. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 4. JOSEPH RENJI, HOUSE NO.XXXIV/585, PANAKKAL VEEDU, VEEKSHNAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM COCHIN-682018. 5. GRACY DAVID ALIAS ANNAMMA ABRAHAM, D/O. LATE P.I.DAVID, DO-DO- 6. SHERLY GEORGE, D/O. LATE P.I.DAVID, DO-DO- 7. SHERIN CHANDY, D/O. LATE P.I.DAVID, DO-DO- R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.M.L.SAJEEV THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.5 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 6th January, 2010 ORDER The revision is directed against the order No.TLB(SM)239/TPY. dated 3.10.2009 passed by the Taluk Land Board, Thalappilly under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. In respect of the property covered by the Ceiling Cases against two landlords, namely, Cheruchi and Kunjani, both of them sisters, petitioners and others set up claims contending that they have valid tenancy rights over specific portions of the properties and it remain under their continuous possession and enjoyment. The Taluk Land Board had considered the claims raised by the claimants and negatived them as meritless, more than once. The orders of the Taluk Land Board turning down their claims had been challenged by way of revision before this court and on disposal of this revision with some directions, the Board reconsidering the matter has found all the claims set up by the claimants unworthy of merit. Previous proceedings of the Taluk Land Board, after remission by this court, negativing the claims of the petitioners and other claimants were passed on 24.8.1992. That order was challenged by the claimants including the petitioners by CRP No.5/10 - 2 - filing three revisions, C.R.P.Nos.2473 of 1992, 2602 of 1992 and 2603 of 1992. Petitioners have filed C.R.P.No.2473 of 1992 challenging the order passed by the Taluk Land Board vide proceedings dated 24.8.1992. All these revisions were disposed under a common order by this court dated 21.2.2003. Annexure III is the copy of that order. Operative portion of Annexure III order reads thus: “The result of the above discussion is that the orders impugned in these revision petitions will stand modified only to the extent of directing the Taluk Land Board to take possession of the lands in Perumpilavu Village covered by the documents of title relied on by the revision petitioners in C.R.P.No.2473/92 only if the Taluk Land Board finds itself unable to take possession of the other properties in the name of the declarants including the properties covered by the claims of the revision petitioners in C.R.P.Nos.2602 & 2603/92 - the properties in Arthat Village. Thus C.R.P.2473/92 is allowed in part and C.R.P.Nos.2602/92 and 2603/92 are dismissed. The impugned orders will stand confirmed in all respects other than to the extent modified by the order in CRP No.5/10 - 3 - C.R.P.No.2473/92.” Pursuant to the above order, the Taluk Land Board passed the present order dated 3.10.2009 by which after reconsideration the claims set up by all the claimants including the present petitioners were again negatived as meritless. 2. I heard the counsel for the revision petitioners. Perusing the impugned order of the Taluk Land Board with reference to Annexure III common order passed by this court in the revisions referred to above, it is evident that the Taluk Land Board has not understood the scope and binding force of the order rendered by this court. There was no direction for fresh consideration of the claims of any of the claimants, but, only granting of a limited relief in the case of the present petitioners that the Board shall take possession of the lands in Perumpilavu Village in respect of which the present petitioners, who were the petitioners in C.R.P.No.2473 of 1992, raised claims only if the excess land of the declarant determined by the Board and the possession of which is to be taken over could not be satisfied from taking over the possession of other properties of the declarant, in some of which other claimants had set up claims, situate in Arthat Village. In fact, there was no direction by this court for a fresh enquiry on the claims raised by any of the revision petitioners CRP No.5/10 - 4 - covered by the three revisions which were disposed under Annexure III order. Annexure III order has become final and conclusive and the proceedings giving rise to the present order of the Taluk Land Board as if there was a remand for fresh consideration of the claims was in fact a meaningless exercise which was uncalled for. Previous orders passed by the Taluk Land Board under proceedings No.TLB(SM) 239/TPY dated 24.8.1992 remained undisturbed except to the limited extent with respect to taking of possession of the property of the present revision petitioners as indicated above by virtue of Annexure III order. That being so, I find the proceedings passed by the Taluk Land Board which is challenged in the present revision has to be treated as nonest as it was one passed without jurisdiction and further in violation of Annexure III order which has become final. 3. The Taluk Land Board shall take appropriate proceedings as provided by law respecting the mandatory directions given under Annexure III order with respect to the taking over of possession of the properties of the declarants. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits covered under Section 7E of the Land Reforms Act which has been brought in force by way of amendment. If at all, the petitioners are entitled to any such relief, it CRP No.5/10 - 5 - is a matter to be considered by the appropriate authority - Land Tribunal and not the Taluk Land Board. Petitioners can canvass whatever rights available to them by virtue of Section 7E of the Amended Land Reforms Act before the competent authority, if so advised. I do not want to express any opinion on the merit of the claim raised by the petitioners for the properties which are stated to be in his possession and enjoyment claiming the benefits under Section 7E as it is a matter to be considered by the appropriate authority, if so advised, in accordance with law. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE