IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 CRP.No. 477 of 2008() ------------------ TLB.1161/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, TALIPARAMBA ................. REVISION PETITIONER / FORM VI APPLICANT : --------------------------------------------------------------------- C.MUHAMMED ASHRAF, S/O. ALIPPI HAJI, AGED 55 YEARS, MANNA, TALIPARAMBA P.O., THOUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, BROTHER C. ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE, S/O. ALIPPI HAJI, AGED 68 YEARS, MANNA, TALIPARAMBA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU RESPONDENT : ----------------------- THE TALUK LAND BOARD, TALIPARAMBA, OFFICE AT KANNUR AT COLLECTORATE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.L. SAJEEVAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.477 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2011. ORDER Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondent. 2. This civil revision is in challenge of proceeding of the Taluk Land Board, Thaliparamba (for short, “the TLB”) dated 27.02.2008 in TLB- 1161/73/TBA whereby the claim of petitioner under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short, “the Act”) was not entertained by the TLB for the reason that the said application was not filed within the prescribed time. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that petitioner got knowledge of the proceeding of the TLB in respect of the land in question only on October 7, 1994 when he met the Village Officer and thereon, application under Section 85(8) of the Act was filed on November 1, 1994 which is within sixty days of the knowledge of proceeding and hence, within time as held by this Court in Krishnan v. Taluk Land Board, Vaikom (1997 KLT 209). It is also contended by learned counsel that property in respect of which the claim is made is covered by a purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal and hence, notwithstanding that application under Section 85(8) of the Act was preferred beyond the prescribed time the TLB was bound to consider the same unless the purchase certificate is CRP No.477/2008 2 found not genuine or authentic. Reliance is placed on the decision in Aliparamba Mohammed and others v. Taluk Land Board and others ((1997) 11 SCC 256). 3. Learned Government Pleader has contended that possession of the property was taken on May 24, 1979 and April 16, 1979, respectively and if actually petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest who claimed right under the original declarant wherein possession of the property, they would have got information about the proceeding of TLB when possession was taken over. 4. It is the case of petitioner that he has got absolute right and possession of 5.02 acres in R.S.No.68/1C of Chuzhali Amsom, Kulathur Desom and that the said property along with other items was possessed by his parents and which he got as per partition deed No.873 of 1959 of SRO, Thaliparamba. 5. In Krishnan v. Taluk Land Board, Vaikom (supra) this Court held that the application under Section 85(8) of the Act need be filed within sixty days of the knowledge of the order. Here, petitioner asserted that he learnt about the proceedings of the TLB only on October 7, 1994 when he met the Village Officer. The Supreme Court in Aliparamba Mohammed and others v. Taluk Land Board and others (supra) has held that when the claimant under Section 85(8) of the Act is armed with a purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal, dismissal of the application under Section 85(8) of the Act on the ground of delay is improper unless the purchase certificate is CRP No.477/2008 3 found not genuine or authentic. 6. It is not clear whether the petitioner has produced the purchase certificate he claims to have in respect of the land in question, if he has obtained a purchase certificate he must get an opportunity to produce the same and the TLB has to consider that notwithstanding whether the application is preferred within the time prescribed under Section 85(8) of the Act. Otherwise also, the TLB has to consider whether the application is filed within 60 days from the date petitioner claims to have learnt about the proceeding of the TLB. In either way the order under challenge is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. Resultantly this civil revision is allowed by way of remand. The impugned order dated 27.02.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Taluk Land Board, Thaliparamba for fresh decision in the light of the observations made above and the decisions cited supra. Petitioner shall get an opportunity to produce all his evidence in support of his claim. I.A.No.1370 of 2008 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks