IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 1094 of 2000(E) ----------------------- CC.506/1973 & 507/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, OTTAPALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- P.V.KUNCHUNNI NAIR, PARATHIKKATTE VEETHOTTUR NAIR HOUSE, ARANGOTTUKARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1.GOVT. OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2.THE TALUK LAND BOARD, OTTAPPALAM. 3.THE TAHSILDAR, OTTAPPALAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.1094 OF 2000 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010 O R D E R Revision is directed against the order dated 31.3.2000 in C.C.Nos.506 of 1973 and 507 of 1973 passed by the Taluk Land Board, Ottappalam. Revision petitioner is one among the two declarants in the above ceiling proceedings. The revision petitioner and also his maternal aunt, namely, Ittunnooli Nessiar, were having equal rights in the properties divided under a partition deed, executed among the sharers of their tharavad, when the ceiling provisions of the Act came into force, both of them, had separate rights, one half share each in the properties. Allotted under the deed. The Taluk Land Board however proceeded clubbing together the entire properties as if it jointly belonged to the revision petitioner and his maternal aunt. The Taluk Land Board passed an order directing the declarants, the revision petitioner and his maternal aunt, treating that the properties are held by them jointly, to surrender the excess area CRP.1094/00 2 determined. That order was challenged by the present revision petitioner, and also by some others, who had obtained purchase certificates from the Land Tribunal recognising their tenancy right over some of the properties filing revisions before this court. The claims raised by such claimants had been negatived by the Taluk Land Board in its order passed against the declarants. Both those revisions, after being heard together, were disposed by a common order dated 24th November, 1988. This Court disposing the revision directed the Taluk Land Board to consider the matter afresh subject to the observations and directions given in that order. It was specifically directed that the properties held by the declarants have to be treated separately, and not jointly, for the purpose of determining the excess land, after the ceiling limit, owned by each of them. The plea raised by the present revision petitioner that 37 acres and 22 cents of the property covered by the ceiling proceedings is a rubber plantation was also found creditworthy by this Court, and, accordingly, a direction was given to the Taluk Land Board to consider and examine the benefit of the proviso to Section 81 of the Land Reforms Act in respect of that plantation. With CRP.1094/00 3 respect to the revision, C.R.P.No.3490 of 1982, filed by some purchase certificate holders contending that they had obtained purchase certificates over portions of the property covered by the ceiling proceedings, taking note of the objections raised by them and also that of the revision petitioners, who also supported their case, this Court directed the Taluk Land Board to go further into the matter and ascertain whether the purchase certificate holders were really in possession of the property as on 1.4.1964 as tenants. A specific direction was issued to the Taluk Land Board to make detailed enquiry with regard to the claims of the interested parties in O.A.Nos.61, 62, 63, 64 and 65 of 1973 and ascertain whether they have any genuine claim of tenancy or not with respect to the property claimed by them. Admittedly, State has filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the common order passed in the revision by this Court with directions as indicated above. That SLP, it is submitted, had been dismissed. Pursuant thereto, the Taluk Land Board conducted enquiries afresh and heard the parties involved in the proceedings and passed the impugned order challenged in the present revision. CRP.1094/00 4 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also the learned Special Govt. Pleader. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the conclusion formed by the Taluk Land Board that the purchase certificate holders, who have obtained purchase certificates under the orders passed in O.A.Nos.61, 62, 63, 64 and 65 of 1973 are not in possession of the properties involved and also that they have obtained such purchase certificates collusively, and fraudulently with the declarant, is patently erroneous and not supported by any materials whatsoever. Banking upon Section 72K of the Act, it is contended that once a purchase certificate is issued, there is a presumption as to its validity, and the Taluk Land Board, an authority under the Land Reforms Act cannot sit in judgment over the validity of such certificate issued by the authority under the same Statute. Purchase certificates issued in favour of the applicants in the above O.A.'s have not been cancelled by any proceedings by the State, and so much so, fraud in obtaining such certificate, as stated by the Taluk Land Board, is bereft of any merit, is the submission of the counsel. The order of the Taluk Land Board is also assailed on the ground that the CRP.1094/00 5 exemption provided with respect to house site and also shop building is also much less and the genuine request and the claim made by the declarant in that regard has not been properly appreciated by the court. Setting aside the order and remitting the matter for consideration of these questions afresh is urged by the counsel for advancing the ends of justice. On the other hand, the learned Govt. Pleader inviting attention to the specific directions in the remand order of this Court, submitted that no interference with the order of the Taluk Land Board is called for as the purchase certificate holders who had earlier filed a revision against the previous orders have no grievance or challenge against the order of the Taluk Land Board. This Court had specifically directed the Taluk Land Board to go into the question whether the purchase certificate holders were having possession as on 1.4.1964 and also whether certificates obtained by them are genuine. When that be so, the findings arrived by the Taluk Land Bord with respect to the claim based on the purchase certificates, after due enquiry, cannot be impeached as one without jurisdiction or even be canvassed as irregular and improper is the submission of the learned Govt.Pleader. CRP.1094/00 6 Whatever exemption can be extended to the declarant has been taken into account and appropriate orders thereof have been made by the Taluk Land Board is the submission of the Govt.Pleader. 3. Perusing the order of the Taluk Land Board with reference to statements made by the counsel for the revision petitioner and also the learned Special Govt. Pleader, I find the declarant at any rate, cannot impeach the findings entered by the Taluk Land Board with respect to the purchase certificates issued in favour of the third party, which, admittedly, relate to the property determined as excess area to be surrendered in the ceiling proceedings. This Court in the remand order had specifically directed the Taluk Land Board to examine the genuineness of the purchase certificates obtained by third parties in respect of properties owned by the declarants to consider the excess area to be surrendered by them in the ceiling proceedings. It is seen from the order of the Taluk Land Board that when returns were filed, the revision petitioner and also his maternal aunt had no case that the lands in respect of CRP.1094/00 7 which purchase certificates have been issued continued under the possession and enjoyment of the third parties. The learned Govt. Pleader has also brought to my notice that such purchase certificates had been issued on submission of J Form applications, by which the landlord and applicants together sought for assignment of rights over the land in favour of such applicants. It is also pointed out that such applications had been moved after the returns had been filed by the declarants in the ceiling proceedings. None of the purchase certificate holders, it is to be noticed, has challenged the order of the Taluk Land Board holding that the certificates obtained by them are not genuine. The Taluk Land Board has proceeded with notice to these purchase certificate holders is amply proved in the present case where they had approached this Court with a revision earlier challenging the previous order of the Board. When that be the case, I find that the challenge raised against the impugned order by the revision petitioner, declarant, for the reason that the Board has discarded statutory presumption available to a purchase certificate issued by a Land Tribunal, cannot be given any merit or consideration. So far as the other CRP.1094/00 8 challenge that the Taluk Land Board has not provided adequate exemption of land with reference to the house site and shop building also, I do not find any basis. Suffice to state, no interference with the order of the Taluk Land Board is called for. It is also to be noted that in a revision under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, this Court can interfere with the orders passed by the authorities under that Act only where it is satisfied that such authority has either decided erroneously or failed to decide any question of law. No such challenge based on any question of law is canvassed or raised in the revision. Revision petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp