IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 CRP.No. 352 of 2000(A) ---------------------- TLB.655/1973(Kas) ON THE FILE OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD, KASARGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------- 1. K.G. GOWRI SHANKAR RAI, S/O M.G.GANESH NARAYANA RAI, ADVOCATE “AKKAMMA” , ASHWINI NAGAR KASARAGOD- 671 121. 2. MYNA G.RAI, WIFE OF NO.1 RESIDING AT “AKKAMMA” ASWINI NAGAR, KASARAGODE P.O. KASARAGOD BY ADV. . SMT.PRABHA R.MENON SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, TALUK LAND BOARD KASARAGOD 2. SHARADA 3. VIJAYA LAXMI 4. JALAJAKSHI 5. SUMATHI 6. LALITHA 7. GOPALAKRISHNA ( NOS. 2 TO 7 ARE THE CHILDREN OF SUBRAYA ACHARY, RESIDING AT KATTE IN BELA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK) GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SHYSONP.MANGUZHA FOR R1&8 SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH FOR R2 TO R7 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2009, ALONG WITH CRP NO. 2692 OF 2000 THE COURT ON 16/01/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN C.M.P. NO. 698 OF 2000 IN C.R.P. NO. 352 OF 2000 DISMISSED SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE 16.1.2009 HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.Nos. 352 & 2692 of 2000 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January , 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner in C.R.P 352/2000 is the declarant inTLB in the ceiling case No. TLB 655/73/KAS on the file of the Taluk Land Board Kasaragod. By the proceedings of the Taluk Land Board dated 10.12.1980 the ceiling case was decided finding that the declarant is not owinging or possessing any land in excess of the ceiling limt. The property owned or possessed by the declarant includes 4.19 acres in R.S. 147/4 of Bella village and and extent of 3.20. Ares in R.s. 148/5 in the same village . These properties are included in a civil suit filed by the declarant against the Government for adverse possession. The decree passed by the Munsiff court, Kasargode which was reversed in first appeal was restored by this Court in second appeal . Though the ownership of the properties was pending litigation the declarant submitted that the total extent owned by held by him including the aforesaid properties. The Taluk Land Board by the proceedings dated 19.12.1980 after considering all the aspects held that the declarant is not owning or possession any land in excess of the ceiling limit in respect of the properties in Survey No. 147/4 and 148/5 on the basis of the information furnished by the District Colector, Kasargode. The Taluk land Board by the impugned order observed that on a verification of the records it is seen that -2- the declarant has shown the above lands under annexure c of the ceiling return and against column No. 7 therein he has mentioned that the Government has no subsisting right to the said properties and that the munisiff court decreed the suit on 4.10.1972. From the District Collector's report it is seen that the decree passed in favour of of the declarant confirming that the decree in O.S. 748/78 by judgment ment dated 27.1.1983. . It is also stated in the impugned order that since the Civil suit was pending between the declarant and the Government the said land were trated as Government AW lands and were not included in the statement given. In this connection I refere to paragraph 7 of the proceedings of the land board dated 19.12. 1980. The property in Survey No. as extent of 3.20 acres in R.S. 148/5 was held included in the account of the declarant in the ceiling proceedings initiated in 1973 This was taken note of by the Taluk Land Board . In the presenr impugned order in paragraph 3 and therefore the reason stated for re-opening the case that there lands were treated as government lands were not inclueded . Therefore the reasons stated that these lands were not included in the statement is absolutely incorrect and misleading. The reasons stated in all probability can be made as a pretext for re-opening the ceiling case. -3- The learned counse for the revision petition contended that the 1st respondent having passed the final order finding that the declarant is not liable to surrender any land as excess land the subsequent reopening of the matter on the premise that the property in the aforesaid survey numbers are subsequent acquisitions after 1.1.1970 is illegal and without jurisdiction. So long as the properties are considered and accounted in his name in the earlier proceedings the respondoent have no authorities to the jurisdiction to re-open the case stating that those two items are subsequent acquisition. The learned counsel foro the petitioner also brought to my notice a Divions Bench decision of this Court in State of Kerala Vs. Parukutty 1994 (1) KLT 99 .After concincing the fact that the aforesaid properties are also taken note of the decidiing of the ceiling case earlier it is strange to find that the proceedings are reopened stating that the said properties are subsequent acquisitions Therefore the revised order passed which is impugned int his revision is without authority and therefore not legal. C.R.P 2692/2000 was filed by the revision petitioner claiming to be a tenant . He is the applicant 85(8) of the K.L.R. Act. In view of the final order passed in C.R.P. 352/2000 no order is necessary inC.R.P. 2692/2000. There is no necessity to consider this C.R.P. On merits. -4- In the result C.R.P. No. 352/2000 is allowed The impugned order is set aside C.R.P. 2692/2000 is also disposed of in the light of the decision in C.R.P. 352/2000. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------------------- C.R.P Nos. 352 & 2692 of 2000 --------------------------------------- JUDGMENT 16th January, 2009