IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 1255 of 2001(E) ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/01/2000 IN SM.5/1989 of TALUK LAND BOARD, TIRUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.R.BINDU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SMT.ADRUSSERI SREEDEVI, D/O.KUTTIKRISHNAN NAIR, P.O.THEKKANKUTTOOR, THALAKKAD VILLAGE. 2. SRI.K.NARAYANKUTTY, THEKKANKUTTOOR, THALAKKAD. 3. SMT.CHITTAKATH KUNHIKADIYUMMA, W/O.VETTANANKADAVATH KAMMATH, THEKKANKUTTOOR.P.O. 4. SMT.VETTANAM KADAVATH PATHUMMAYI, W/O.CHITTAKATH KARTHI VEETTIL ABDUL REHIMAN. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------- C.R.P.No.1255 of 2001 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of January, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Taluk Land Board, Tirur in S.M.5/98, whereby the Taluk Land Board held that the assessee is eligible to hold 15 ordinary acres of land, whereas she is in possession of only 13 acres and ½ cent and, therefore, dropped the ceiling case. 2. Heard learned Government Pleader, who argued the matter in extenso, as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. At the outset, I may like to state that the Taluk Land Board has considered each and every objection and had given cogent convincing reason for consideration and acceptance. The first objection is regarding survey No.190/1, where the Taluk Land Board found that as per the Authorised Officer's report, the correct extent which belonged to the assessee is only 6 cents and therefore deleted 10 cents from the ceiling account. Similarly, with respect to other survey numbers as well, the Taluk Land Board considered and found that they are supported by documents. In so far as it relates to 76 cents in R.S.No.359/17, the Court found that by virtue of a C.R.P.1255/01 -2- document in the year 1920, the property was entrusted by the Tharavadu of the assessee to one Kunnath Kunheen and by subsequent devolution of the documents in the years 1933, 1966 etc. and by virtue of certificates of purchase issued, the property is in the possession of others and therefore deleted 76 cents of land. It is a well considered order giving cogent reason for exclusions. Similarly, the Taluk Land Board also considered in detail the acceptability of the contentions regarding survey No.270/12, where the property has been assigned in favour of the individual tenants as per orders in O.A.1732/76, O.A.6634/76 and O.A.6635/76. All these files were perused and the contention of the persons that their tenancy under the Tharavadu was considered by the Taluk Land Board and they are supported by anterior documents and therefore accepted the same. Similarly, the objections regarding R.S. Nos.197/1, 214/3, 133/1 & 133/4 also had been considered elaborately and had been answered in favour of the assessee. 4. In the revision memorandum, the Government of Kerala has just challenged each and every findings of the Taluk Land Board but do not find any materials in support of that contention. If it is not a well considered order and there is no reasoning, certainly this C.R.P.1255/01 -3- Court should interfere in the matter. But here is a case where the Taluk Land Board has considered each and every aspect referred to in the document and also relied upon the Authorised Officer's report to arrive at a decision. It is a well considered proposition that the certificate of purchase issued is a conclusive proof of pendency unless the same is vitiated by fraud or other circumstances under the Contract Act. Similarly, it is also equally settled principle that the Authorised Officer's report is an acceptable piece of evidence, as he has exercised statutory provisions under Section 105 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Apex Court has also held about the conclusive proof of the certificate of purchase under Section 72(k) in Mathew & Others Vs. Taluk Land Board, reported in 1979 KLT 601. So from these discussions, I do not find that any illegality or irregularity is committed by the Taluk Land Board in arriving at a decision. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) jg