IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 531 of 2001() --------------------- SMP.306/1976 of TALUK LAND BOARD, PERINTALMANNA .................... REVISION PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. SMT. MAMMEERIAKUTTY UMMA, W/O.T.K.CHERIA AHAMMED KUTTY THANGAL, KERALA ESTATE. 2. SRI.T.K.MAYINKUTTY @ BAPPU, THODUVAZHIKUNNEL, MANHALPARA, KERALA ESTATE. 3. SRI.T.K.ABDULLAKUTTY, THODUVAZHIKUNNEL MANHALPARA, KERALA ESTATE. 4. SRI.T.K.MARAKKAR, THODUVAZHIKUNNEL, MANHALPARA, KERALA ESTATE. 5. SMT.T.K. KUNHINU @ PATHUKUTTY, MANHALPARA, KERALA ESTATE. 6. SRI.T.K.ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE, RAMANTHIRUTHU, EDAPATTA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 531 OF 2001 --------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Taluk Land Board, Perintalmanna, dt. 28.12.99 in SMP No.306/76. By the said order, the Land Board found that Smt. Mameeriyakutty Umma had exclusive right over 9.10 acres of land of the erstwhile Karuvarakundu Village. The Land Board also found that 7.45 acres of land covered by document No.2608/59 was included in the ceiling case of her husband namely Cheriya Ahemmedkutty. Cheriya Ahemmedkutty had more than one wife. He had opted the 3rd wife to be the wife for the purpose of statutory family under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. When it is so, though Mameeriyakutty Umma is the wife of the said person, she has not become a part and parcel of the statutory family. If any property is found to be held by her in her individual capacity, it has to be treated as her individual property and that has to be excluded. 2. Learned Government Pleader very strongly contends that only an attested copy of the documents was produced before the CRP NO.531/01 2 Taluk Land Board, whereas it was the duty cast upon the said Mameeriyakutty Umma to produce an authenticated copy for the purpose of considering the case. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that her client is prepared to produce an authenticated copy. When such an authenticated copy is produced and it is found that Mameeriyakutty Umma who obtained 9.10 acres under that document of which 7.45 acres is taken into consideration for fixing the ceiling limit of Cheriya Ahemmedkutty necessarily, that 7.45 acres has to be excluded. Since the Land Board has the power to reopen the case under Section 85 (9) (c) as stated by its order, the earlier rejection of an application on a technical ground under Section 85 (8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act should not defeat the ends of justice. Therefore, the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Taluk Land Board for the solitary purpose of enabling Mameeriyakutty Umma to produce an authenticated copy of the document No.2608/59 and when it is found that 9.10 acres of land, as stated in the Land Board’s order is covered by that document, and that 7.45 acres is included in the ceiling limit of Cheriya Ahemmedkutty, the Board can pass orders CRP NO.531/01 3 accordingly for deleting 7.45 acres of the Land. If it is not so, it may pass appropriate orders as per the terms of the application. The Taluk Land Board shall issue registered notice with acknowledgment due to the parties for fixing the hearing date and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps CRP NO.531/01 4 M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------- CRP NO.531/01 --------------------- ORDER 2nd January, 2008