IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 CRP.No. 468 of 2009() --------------------- SR.513/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, PERINTALMANNA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/LEGAL HEIRS OF DECLARANT: --------------------- 1. K.V. SAYED MOHAMMED POOKOYA THANGAL, S/O. K.V. SEETHIKOYA THANGAL, KOZHAKATTIRI, PERINTHALMANNA. 2. K.V.S. AYISHA BEEVI, D/O. K.V.S. SEETHIKOYA THANGAL, KOZHAKATTIRI, PERINTALMANNA. 3. K.V. SAYED AHAMMED IMBICHI KOYA THANGAL, D/O. K.V.S. SEETHIKOYA THANGAL, KOZHAKATTIRI, PERINTALMANNA. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. TALUK LAND BOARD, PERINTALMANNA, 2. TAHSILDAR, PERINTHALMANNA, 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.468 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009 O R D E R Petitioners are the legal heirs of a declarant against whom proceedings were taken by the Taluk Land Board for surrender of excess land. The Taluk Land Board, Perinthalmanna directed the declarant to surrender 33.56 acres of land which was found in excess of the ceiling limit. Declarant filed a revision as C.R.P.No.3402 of 1976 before this Court against the order of the Taluk Land Board. Pursuant to the direction given in that revision, 12.39 ½ acres of land from the excess land determined was deducted as gift to his major children under a partition deed No.2629/72. Previous order was modified directing the declarant to surrender 21.16 ½ acres as covered land. Declarant again filed another revision C.R.P.No.3339 of 1980 challenging the order of the Taluk Land Board. This Court set aside the order of the Taluk Land Board and directed for fresh consideration. The Taluk Land CRP.468/09 2 Board, on such remittance, after fresh consideration, passed an order directing surrender of the land as fixed earlier. The children of the declarant thereafter filed another revision as C.R.P.No.865 of 1991 challenging the order of the Taluk Land Board, and thereupon allowing the revision, the Taluk Land Board was directed to consider the claims raised by the petitioners afresh. After considering the matter afresh, the declarant's family was allowed to retain 15.32 acres in their possession with direction to surrender 31.43 acres. That order was also challenged by the children of the declarant by filing C.R.P.No.663 of 1996. Again the order of the Land Board was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. A deed, which was styled as a partition deed was directed to be considered as a gift deed, and it was held that the allotment made under the deed to the major son deserves to be excluded from the total area available to the declarant as on 1.1.1970 for the purpose of computing the total area held by him and the area to be surrendered. As per the order passed by this Court in revision, the Taluk Land Board again considered the claims made by the claimants who filed the subsequent revisions and redetermined the total area held by the declarant after excluding the area allotted to his CRP.468/09 3 major son. A report from the authorised officer was also collected. It was found that only one among the sons, namely, Koya Thangal had obtained majority as on 1.1.1970. Taking note of the land set up on for the above said Koya Thangal in the partition deed, which covered 12.54 acres and providing the maximum limit fixed under Section 84(1)A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act as 7.50 acres, the excess area to be surrendered was computed. Though the remand order dated 23.11.2001 in C.R.P.No.663 of 1996 directed deduction of the area to be surrendered by having computation of a total area after giving credit to the allotment made to a major son, and that alone, after such remission, a case was projected by the claimants that one of the daughters of the declarant, namely, Smt.Amina @ BeeviKunhi was married and obtained family before 1.1.1970, though she was a minor as on 1.1.1970. So much so, the claimants wanted deleting the properties allotted to her also in the partition deed from the ceiling account of the declarant. Some documents were also produced to show that the above said Amina was married before 1.1.1970. The Taluk Land Board noted that in the previous proceedings, the declarant had contended that the said Amina @ BeeviKunhi was a minor as on 1.1.1970 and had sought her inclusion in CRP.468/09 4 the statutory family of the declarant. He had no case that she was married on or before 1.1.1970. The contradictory stand taken by the legal heirs of the declarant at the later stage, to exclude Amina from the statutory family of the declarant to claim the benefit of the gift under Section 84(1)A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, so as to get deletion of her share allotted to her in the partition deed in computing the total area of the land of the declarant and fixing the area to be surrendered, was found not acceptable by the Taluk Land Board. The case advanced by the legal heirs of the declarant that the land included in the ceiling case is in the possession of several other persons with valid sale deeds, after examination of each case, was also found unacceptable, and therefore, rejected. The Taluk Land Board thereupon passed orders fixing an extent of 19.20 acres as the excess land to be surrendered in the ceiling case. Challenging the propriety and correctness of that order, the revision has been filed by the legal heirs of the declarant, who had previously challenged earlier orders of the Taluk Land Board as well. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the Special Govt.Pleader, who took notice for the CRP.468/09 5 respondents. One of the legal heirs of the declarant, Smt.Amina @ BeeviKunhi married earlier to 1.1.1970, though she was a minor at that time, was entitled to enjoy the benefit of the gift, the allotment of the properties made in her favour in the partition deed, under Section 84(1)A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, and the Taluk Land Board was not right in rejecting her entitlement to that benefit, is the main challenge raised to impeach the order of the Taluk Land Board. Another ground canvassed was that the petitioners, the legal heirs of the declarant, are entitled to the benefit under Section 7 (e) of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Special Govt. Pleader submitted that there is no merit in the challenges raised to question the correctness of the orders passed by the Taluk Land Board in computing the total area of the declarant or directing the surrender of the excess land as specified in the order. 3. In the previous revision, C.R.P.No.663 of 1996, disposed by this Court by order dated 23.11.2001, it cannot be disputed only the claim of the major son Sri.KAhammed Koya Thangal, who attained majority as on 1.1.1970 was alone directed to be considered for the entitlement of the gift CRP.468/09 6 envisaged under Section 84(1)A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act with reference to the allotment of properties made in his favour under the partition deed No.2629/72. Even when the above revision was presented against previous order of the the Taluk Land Board nor when it was disposed by this Court, the petitioners had no case that Amina @ BeeviKunhi had been married as on 1.1.1970, and had a separate family and as such, she too was entitled to the benefit under Section 84(1)A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act with respect to the allotment made in her favour under the above partition deed. The Taluk Land Board was bound by the directions given in the remand order passed by this Court and the new case developed setting forth a claim of Smt.Amina @ BeeviKunhi as referred to above, is seen to be repugnant and militating against the case of the declarant, who claimed for inclusion of that minor daughter as a member of his statutory family, and it was also accepted by the Taluk Land Board earlier in computing the total area and fixing the land to be surrendered by the declarant. The new claim advanced by the legal heirs of the declarant on remission of the case by this Court after setting aside the previous orders of the Taluk Land Board is against the case of the declarant. I find the Taluk Land Board CRP.468/09 7 was perfectly right in holding that it was not entertainable. Similar is the case of the challenge raised that the legal heirs of the declarant are entitled to the benefit under Section 7 (e) of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005, which has no application to the facts of the case. There is no merit in the revision, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp