IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 CRP.No. 773 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/08/2007 IN TLB.182/THIRUVALLA of TALUK LAND BOARD,THIRUVALLA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------- M.C.EAPEN, S/O.EAPEN GEEVARGHESE, AGED 66 YEARS, MANALIL HOUSE, KADAPRA VILLAGE, KADAPRA - MANNAR P.O., THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THIRUVALLA (R.D.O., THIRUVALLA). 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R1 & R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.773 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010. ORDER This revision is in challenge of order dated 04.08.2007 in TLB No.182/Thiruvalla of the Thiruvalla Taluk Land Board declining relief to the petitioner under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short, “the Act”). According to the petitioner, the Land Board took steps to take possession of excess land belonging to one Venkiteswara Iyer and the order passed in that proceeding was ultimately confirmed by the Supreme Court also. The excess land ordered to be surrendered by the said Venkiteswara Iyer took in 24 cents over which according to the petitioner, his father late Eappen Geevarghese was a cultivating tenant. The said Eappen Geevarghese sent an application to the Chairman of the Taluk Land Board on 07.02.1981 by registered post under Section 85(8) of the Act seeking exemption of his land for the reason that he is a cultivating tenant. The Taluk Land Board did not pass any order on that application. After death of the father, petitioner made a request to respondent No.1 on 18.02.2000 to consider the claim petition preferred by his father, the late Eappen Geevarghese. As there was no order passed on the representation dated 18.02.2000 petitioner approached this Court with W.P.(C) No.16365 of 2007 and obtained an order for a decision on the representation dated 18.02.2000 referred to above. Respondent No.1 accordingly decided the said representation as per impugned order holding that since the claim is not made CRP No.773/2008 2 within sixty days as required under Section 85(8) of the Act, claim of petitioner cannot be entertained. The representation was accordingly rejected. That order is under challenge in this revision. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the order impugned is illegal for two reasons - firstly that the claim was not made as per representation dated 18.02.2000 but that was only a reminder of the claim petition already made by his father, late Eappen Geevarghese on 07.02.1981 which was within the time prescribed under Section 85(8) of the Act and secondly, Act 25 of 2006 protects the land in the possession of petitioner as legal heir of the said Eappen Geevarghese. I have heard Government Pleader who appeared for the respondents. 2. As per judgment dated 30.05.2007 in W.P.(C) No.16356 of 2007 this Court had directed respondent No.1 to dispose of the representation dated 18.02.2000 (marked Ext.P1 in that proceeding). This Court also directed respondent No.1 to consider claim of petitioner under Act 25 of 2006. It is pursuant to that, the impugned order has been passed. On going through the impugned order it is seen that respondent No.1 proceeded on the assumption that the claim for exemption has been made by the petitioner under Section 85 (8) of the Act as per his representation dated 18.02.2000 and held that it is preferred beyond the period of two months prescribed under the said provision. I have gone through a copy of Ext.P1 produced in this proceeding as Annexure- 3 and find that though in the relief portion petitioner has stated that the said petition may be considered by respondent No.1 under Section 85(8) of the Act CRP No.773/2008 3 and exempt the property in his possession, a reading of the petition would show that it is infact either as a continuation of the claim petition already preferred by his father, the late Eappen Geevarghese or a reminder to respondent No.1 to consider the claim petition preferred by the said Eappen Geevarghese, for, there is reference to the land in question being in the possession of Eappen Geevarghese as a cultivating tenant from 1950 onwards, that petitioner is one of the legal heirs of the said Eappen Geevarghese and in that capacity he is in possession and enjoyment of the property after the death of his father. In clause-10 of Annexure-III, petition (Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) No.16356 of 2007) it is stated that property is not in the possession of the declarant and petitioner is in possession of the property after the death of his father, Eappen Geevarghese. In clause-12 it is stated that the said Eappen Geevarghese had sent a petition to the Chairman (R.D.O., Chengannur), Taluk Land Board stating all the facts and the said petition was received by respondent No.1 on 09.02.1981. Petitioner has also produced copy of postal receipt for his father sending the petition to respondent No.1 and photocopy of the acknowledgment card (marked as Annexures-II(a) and II(b)). The said documents show that the said Eappen Geevarghese had sent claim petition to the Chairman of the Taluk Land Board and the same was received by him as contended by petitioner. Therefore, request made by the petitioner in his representation dated 18.02.2000 is to be treated as one in continuation of the claim already made by his father, the late CRP No.773/2008 4 Eappen Geevarghese and as a reminder to respondent No.1 to consider that claim. In that view of the matter, respondent No.1 was not correct in treating representation dated 18.02.2000 as a claim under Section 85(8) of the Act. 3. Though learned counsel for petitioner made a forcible contention that even without a remand it is possible for this Court to decide the issue in the light of Act 25 of 2006 I do not consider it necessary to consider that question in this proceeding since respondent No.1 has not entered any decision on the applicability of the said Act and its provisions to the claim made by late Eappen Geevarghese. 4. In the light of what I have stated, order under challenge is liable to be set aside and I do so. Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed, order under challenge is set aside and respondent No.1 is directed to consider the claim petition dated 07.02.1981 preferred by the late Eappen Geevarghese as provided under Section 85(8) of the Act and also consider whether the claimant was entitled to protection of Act 25 of 2006 in which case whether petitioner as the legal heir of the late Eappen Geevarghese is entitled to the benefit of the said provision. If found necessary petitioner may produce before respondent No.1 a copy of representation dated 07.02.1981 and copy of postal receipt and acknowledgment card evidencing receipt of that representation by the Chairman CRP No.773/2008 5 of the Taluk Land Board concerned. Respondent No.1 shall dispose of the representation dated 07.02.1981 as early as possible with notice to the petitioner and other interested parties, if any. I.A.No.2374 of 2008 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks