IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH SATURDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2011 / 29TH SRAVANA 1933 CRP.No. 884 of 2008() --------------------- SR.NO.795/73 of TALUK LAND BOARD, PERINTHALMANNA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): ---------------------------------------- 1. AMBATTU MOHAMMED HAJI, S/O.MAMMED HAJI, R/AT MELATTU AMSOM, EDAYATTUR DESOM, P.O.EDAYATTUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. AMBATTU HAMZA, S/O.MAMMED HAJI, R/AT DO. DO. 3. AMBATTU ABOOBACKER HAJI, S/O.DO., R/AT. DO. DO. BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH, SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PERINTHALMANNA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, NILAMBUR. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THUVVUR. 4. STATE OF KERALA-REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER(REVENUE)SMT.SUSHEELA BHAT THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.884 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this 20th day of August, 2011 ORDER The dispute started with the excess land liable to be surrendered by the declarant, the Taluk Land Board (for short, "the TLB”) by order dated 24.03.1980 deciding that the original declarant is liable to surrender 12.46 acres made up of 11.64 acres in survey 822/1 and 82 cents in survey 822/2. Thereafter, four sons of the declarant including petitioner herein, made claims under Sec.85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short, "the Act”) in respect of the 8 acres in survey 822/1 based on sale deed No.134 of 1976 executed by the declarant in their favour. There were various proceedings and civil revisions arising therefrom in this Court and ultimately the TLB by order dated 25.01.2006 accepted the claim of three of the claimants for protection of Sec.7E of the Act and excluded 6 acres out of 8 acres (claimed exemption from the 11.64 acres) in survey 822/1. Claim of petitioner was rejected for the reason that he was a minor as on 01.01.1970 even as per the statement filed by the original declarant, his father. Petitioner challenged that order in C.R.P.No.856 of 2007. This Court observed that the sale deed executed in the year 1976 mentioned age of petitioner as 25 C.R.P.No.884 of 2008 -: 2 :- years and if so, in the year 1970, he must have crossed 18 years (which made him eligible for protection under Sec.7E of the Act). This Court also observed that the TLB has not given sufficient materials to hold that petitioner was a minor on 01.01.1970 (so that, he is disentitled to the protection of Sec.7E of the Act). This Court thought that parties must be given opportunity to adduce evidence in respect of the crucial question as to the age of petitioner as on 01.01.1970. After remand, petitioner produced two documents, - a passport and ration card. In that passport, the date of birth of petitioner is stated as 30.04.1951 (which meant that as on 01.01.1970 he had crossed the age of 18 years) and in other document (ration card) also the age of petitioner was shown as 19 years at the relevant time. The TLB was not impressed by the said document, characterized the said documents as 'unauthenticated' and relying on the ceiling return filed by the original declarant on 17.11.1972 where petitioner was described as a minor as on 01.01.1970, rejected claim of petitioner. The said order is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that there was no material before the TLB to decide otherwise, rejecting the documents produced by petitioner. It is also pointed out that in the registered document of 1976 age of petitioner is stated as 25 C.R.P.No.884 of 2008 -: 3 :- years at a time when nobody thought of claiming protection of Sec.7E of the Act which came into force only much later and hence there is no reason to reject the said document. Much less, there was any reason to reject the documents – passport and ration card produced after remand, it is argued. It is also pointed out by learned counsel that in the light of the documents produced, the TLB was not correct in simply relying on the statement made by the declarant on 17.11.1972 said that petitioner was a minor as on the relevant day. 3. Learned Government Pleader has contended that the documents produced were found to be not acceptable by the TLB for valid reason and at any rate, petitioner has not given any explanation as to his age given by his father in the declaration dated 17.11.1972. It is argued that there was no reason why the father should have given a wrong statement which ultimately disentitled petitioner/son to the benefit of Sec.7E of the Act. According to the learned Government Pleader, statement of the father regarding the age of the son (petitioner) should stand. 4. It appears from the proceeding of the TLB under challenge that apart from describing the documents produced by petitioner as 'unauthenticated' (which itself is disputed by learned counsel for petitioner), no enquiry was conducted by the C.R.P.No.884 of 2008 -: 4 :- TLB as to the genuineness and acceptability of the said documents - particularly as the said documents were produced only after this Court remanded the case to the TLB by order dated September 27, 2007 in C.R.P.No.856 of 2007. Necessarily the TLB ought to have enquired into the authenticity and acceptability of the said documents also bearing in mind that the said documents are issued by public authorities in the discharge of their official duties and that in the absence of sufficient material, it could not have been simply rejected calling it as 'unauthenticated'. At the same time petitioner also owed an explanation as to why and how his father, the declarant happened to make a statement on 17.11.1972 that he was a minor as on 01.01.1970. Of course it is open to the petitioner to urge before the TLB that as on the date the declarant made the statement, age of petitioner was not relevant since it became relevant only by the enactment of Sec.7E of the Act. 5. Though, learned Government Pleader has addressed certain other arguments also regarding entertainability of the claim of petitioner, I do not consider it necessary to go into those contentions since those matters are concluded by order dated September 27, 2007 in C.R.P.No.856 of 2007 in that the remand is only for the limited purpose of ascertaining age of petitioner as C.R.P.No.884 of 2008 -: 5 :- on 01.01.1970. That order has become final and hence parties are bound by it. The issue that therefore survives is only whether petitioner had attained majority on 01.01.1970 so that, he could claim benefit of Sec.7E of the Act. 6. As aforesaid, I am inclined to think that a further enquiry is required in the matter. That has made it necessary to send the case back to the TLB again, notwithstanding that on earlier occasions it had to be so done. Resultantly this civil revision is allowed by way of remand. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the TLB for fresh decision on the question as to whether petitioner had attained majority on 01.01.1970. It is open to the TLB to enquire into the genuineness and acceptability of the documents produced by petitioner or to collect evidence regarding the age of petitioner as they say. Petitioner also can adduce further evidence if any and if found necessary, give appropriate explanation for the statement given by his father in the declaration dated 17.11.1972 as to his age on 01.01.1970. Based on the finding as to the age as aforesaid, the TLB shall pass appropriate orders on the claim of petitioner. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-