IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 3043 of 2000(G) ----------------------- SM.1546/1982 of TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: RESPONDENT NOS.9 TO 13 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MOHAMMEDUPPA, S/O.KOLAYIL MAMMUNNI VELIKKAD, EZHAKKAD AMSOM, DESOM PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. SHAMSUDEEN, S/O.THOTTIKULAYAN KHADERKUTTY VIYAKKURISSI AMSOM AND DESOM MANNARKKAD TALUK. 3. SHERIF, S/O.CHEERATHADAYAN CHEKUTTY THRIKALUR DESOM, POTTASSERY AMSOM MANNARKADU TALUK. 4. SAJI, THOTTIKULAYAN NOOR MUHAMMED POTTASSERY AMSOM AND DESOM MANNARKAD TALUK. 5. HASEENA, W/O.KOLAYIL MOHAMMEDUPPA VELIKKAD, EZHAKKAD AMSOM, DESOM PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.P.VELAYUDHAN SRI.S.SUJITH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA THANKAPPAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2008, ALONG WITH CRP NO.26/2001 AND CRP NO.171/2001, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP3043/2000 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.6162 OF 2000 IN C.R.P.NO.3043 OF 2000 DISMISSED 8.1.2008 SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.3043 of 2000, C.R.P.No.26 of 2001 & C.R.P.No.171 of 2001 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008 O R D E R The revision petitioners in C.R.P.Nos.3043/2000 and 26/2001 claimed right over the properties respectively claimed by them as tenants or assignees of tenants. Some of them obtained purchase certificate. The Taluk Land Board had earlier rejected the claim of the revision petitioners who raised tenancy claim by order dated 14.10.1986. The said order of the Taluk Land Board was set aside in C.R.P.No.3092/86 and 3094/1986. This court in that order dated 29.5.1991 held that as stated in paragraph 10 of the order that the claim of the petitioner is seen to have been rejected by the Taluk Land Board based on the report of the authorised officer, that report was prepared without notice to the petitioner, that since it was prepared in violation of the principles of natural justice, it cannot be taken as conclusive as against the petitioner. It is further observed by this court that the effect of the certificate issued by the Land CRP3043/00 & connected cases 2 Tribunal has not been adverted to by the Taluk Land Board. Therefore, this court quashed the order passed by the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad dated 14.10.1986 in S.M.1546/82 and directed the Taluk Land Board to consider the claims of assessee and the other persons in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made in the said order. It is also made clear that the assessee and the other claimants should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to put forward their contentions. 2. The revision petitioners submitted that the very same report has been relied upon by the Taluk Land Board without calling for a fresh report and thereby the directions issued by this court was not complied and that in view of the newly inserted Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (Act 21/2006) the petitioners are deemed tenants. 3. The revisions petitioners contended that the Taluk Land Board did not consider the contentions raised by the revision petitioners and rejected their claims without adjudicating the claims on the basis of the materials available. The legality of the purchase certificate or the receipts produced for the period 16.2.1968 evidencing payment of rent and other materials are not examined in the proper perspective and CRP3043/00 & connected cases 3 therefore decision under appeal is legally wrong and liable to be inferred by this court. 4. C.R.P.No.171/01 was filed by the declarant. According to him, the impugned order of the Taluk Land Board suffers from the same infirmities and illegalities as it was suffering from when it passed the first order. According to the declarant, the petitioner is not liable to surrender 25.94 acres, that the properties belong to others have been included in his account as owned and possessed by him, that exemptions in respect of house sites, kalam, temple etc. should have been granted. The counsel also submitted that if the holding of 3rd parties are excluded and the necessary exemptions claimed by the assessee are allowed the petitioner will not be liable to surrender any land as excess land. 5. After hearing the submissions of all the counsels representing the petitioners and the assessee, I am of the view that the contentions raised by the parties are not considered by the Taluk Land Board in the right perspective. The case set up by the petitioners is that they are entitled to hold the land as of CRP3043/00 & connected cases 4 CRP3043/00 & connected cases 5 right was not examined in the light of the documents produced by them and by calling for a report of the authorised officer. The assessee is also complaining about the manner in which his contentions are also considered. This court observed that the order that the authorised officers report was prepared without notice to the parties, therefore, the Taluk Land Board ought to have deputed the authorised officer before examining the contentions of the parties. From the records, it is not seen whether any authorised officer was deputed. If not deputed, the Taluk Land Board shall depute authorised officers calling for the report after notice to the affected parties. All the questions raised by the revision petitioners including claim under Section 7E of the Act shall be considered by the Taluk Land Board in the light of the observations made above. All the cases pending relating to this matter shall be disposed of by the Taluk Land Board within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. These civil revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge csl