IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 763 of 2007 -------------------------- TLB(Q)182/1977 OF TALUK LAND BOARD, QUILANDY ................................ REVN. PETITIONERS ----------------------------- 1. SMT.PATHU,W/O. ABDULLA, KATTAYATTU HOUSE, KUNCHIKARA DESOM, NADERI AMSOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. SMT.KUNHAMI,D/O. MOIDEEN PUTHIYEDATH HOUSE, KUNICHIKARA DESOM NADERI AMSOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. SHRI.ABDUL RAHMAN,S/O. ABDULLA PUTHIYEDATH HOUSE, KUNICHIKARA DESOM NADERI AMSOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, KOYILANDY KOZHIKODE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,ARIKKULAM QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. STATE OF KERALA-REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R.BINDHU THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA NO. 2044/2007 IN C.R.P NO. 763/2007 DISMISSED 29/02/2008. SDS/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. True copy tga M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 763 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of Taluk Land Board, Koyilandy whereby the petitions filed by the revision petitioners were dismissed on the ground that the land has been physically taken over and distributed to landless labourers. The revision petitioners namely Pathu, Kunhami, and Abdul Rahman are claiming properties mentioned in paragraph 2 of the Taluk Land Board's order on the strength of 1976, 1978 and 1994 documents respectively. It is contended by them that in view of the amendment to the Land Reforms Act they are the persons in possession covered by S.7(E) of the Act 21 of 2006 and therefore they have to be deemed as tenants and so the properties cannot be considered for fixing the ceiling area of the declarant. The Taluk Land Board held that these are all covered by the proviso to the amendment of Section 84 and therefore the petitioners are not entitled to the relief. CRP NO. 763 of 2007 -:2:- 2. It is the contention of the revision petitioners that they are still in possession of the property and their property had not been taken possession by the authorities under the Act and therefore the finding of the Taluk Land Board that they were not in possession of the property on the date of the commencement of the Act is not correct and it requires interference. 3. The real question, that is, regarding the factum of possession has not been considered by the Taluk Land Board in the proper perspective and therefore I feel an opportunity has to be given to both sides to substantiate their contentions. Therefore I set aside the order of the Taluk Land Board and remand the case back to the Taluk Land Board with a direction to permit the revision petitioners herein to prove that they are entitled to the benefits of Section 7(E) of the Act and the said benefit is not deprived of by any of the proviso to the amended Section 84 of the Act. CRP NO. 763 of 2007 -:3:- 4. The Government can also let in evidence in support of their contention regarding the having of actual possession of the property and the matter be decided in accordance with law. The Taluk Land Board is directed to issue notice to the petitioners by registered post with acknowledgment due intimating the date of posting of the case. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-