IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14240 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SRI.AMMEDKUTTY K.M., S/O.LATE KUNJAMMED, AGED 51 YEARS, SHABNA BENZAN, PALLICKAL, ELLUMANNAM POST, MANANTHAVADY. BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.P.V.LONACHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, TALUK LAND BOARD, MANANTHAVADY. 2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR(L.R.), VAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAVAKA VILLAGE OFFICE, KALLODY POST, MANANTHAVADY. BY GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).14240/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of 20 cents of land, which, according to him, devolved on him under the settlement Deed dated 22.6.1990 executed in his favour by his mother. It seems that the petitioner's mother was a party to a partition Deed executed in the year 1988, amongst the children of one Chaliyadan Mammu. Chaliyadan Mammu was a declarant under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, and proceedings were taken against him by the Taluk Land Board, North Wayanadu, in the first instance, and later by the Taluk Land Board, Mananthavady. The said Taluk Board authorized an officer to submit a verification report looking into a statement filed under Section 85A of the Act. It was reported that the total extent of land held by the declarant and the tenants were 144.19 acres and the tenants are holding 101.59 acres. Reference was made to a gift Deed W.P.(C).14240/2009 2 covering an extent of 10.94 acres of land stated to have been executed by the declarant in favour of his daughter. The extent of land available for assumption by the State was also computed and the proceedings, according to the petitioner, ended. Reference is made in this regard to Ext.P3 orders passed by the Taluk Land Board. 2. Later, steps were taken to re-open the proceedings under Section 85(9) of the Act, in relation to which, according to the petitioner, he had no notice and ultimately, though there was a proposal to re-open the proceedings under Section 85(9) of the Act, an order came to be passed under Section 85(9)(A) of the Act and the directions issued therein comprehends the lands in possession of the petitioner. This was done without notice to the petitioner. Hence, Ext.P7 application has been filed for re-opening the proceedings as regards the 20 cents of land. Same is pending. In the W.P.(C).14240/2009 3 meanwhile, petitioner apprehends dispossession and hence the writ petition. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 4. Petitioner claims title under his mother who was one of the donees of the declarant. If the contentions of the petitioner are correct, the Gift Deed executed in the year 1990 pursuant to a partition in the year 1988 will have to be looked into by the Taluk Land Board. That is a matter for enquiry. In these circumstances the facts stated in Ext.P7 requires consideration. 5. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P7 and pass orders thereon, after due enquiry within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall not be dispossessed from W.P.(C).14240/2009 4 the 20 cents of land claimed by him scheduled to Ext.P7, till orders are passed by the Taluk Land Board. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs