IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 CRP.No. 56 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/11/2008 IN HOS IN TLB.2000/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, HOSDRUG .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/DECLARANT: ------------------------------ K.P.ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAMMADATH HOUSE, NEELESWAR,HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE TALUK LAND BOARD, HOSDURG, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HOSDURG, KASARGOD DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.L.SAJEEV THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A.NO.233/09 IN CRP.NO.56/09 DISMISSED. 20.1.2010 S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.56 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010 O R D E R Revision is directed against the proceedings of the Taluk Land Board, Hosdurg dated 24.11.2008, by which, petitioner, the assesee was held as holding 0.25 acres in excess of the ceiling limit and direction issued to the Tahsildar to take possession of such land. Admittedly, accepting the statement filed by the petitioner, the Taluk Land Board had closed the proceedings against the petitioner previously in 1976. Later, the ceiling case was reopened under Section 85(9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and notice issued to the petitioner/assesee. Pursuant to the proceedings conducted by the Board, it was held that the petitioner is holding 0.25 acres in excess of the ceiling limit and he was directed to surrender that land. That order was challenged by filing a revision C.R.P.No.791 of 2002 before this Court. Proceedings CRP.56/09 2 of the Taluk Land Board were set aside by order dated 6.9.2007 passed in the above revision with direction to the Board to reconsider the matter afresh and pass orders after giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity to lead evidence. The present order impugned in the revision was passed by the Taluk Land Board after remission as indicated above. The revision petitioner has contended that he was not in possession of the land, 0.25 acres, which was determined by the Board as held by him as excess land. He contended that the land was in the possession of one Sri.C.Ahamed and Smt.Isabi. Enquiry conducted through the authorised officer disclosed that the case so projected by the assesee was not correct as the legal heirs of the persons named by him disowned of having possession and enjoyment of the land. It was also disclosed that the revenue charges over the land, comprising 0.25 acres determined as excess land was also remitted by the assesee. On the materials placed and after due enquiry, the Board passed the impugned order holding that the petitioner/assesee held excess land of 0.25 acres and the revenue authority was directed to take possession of such CRP.56/09 3 land. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Govt.Pleader. It is submitted that the order passed by the Taluk Land Board nor any of the materials covered by its proceedings disclose sufficient grounds for reopening of the ceiling case which was previously closed, and as sufficient grounds were not made out for reopening of the case, according to the counsel, the impugned order passed by the Taluk Land Board cannot be sustained. I do not find any merit in that submission. After reopening of the ceiling case, the order passed by the Taluk Land Board had been challenged earlier before this Court by filing C.R.P.No.791 of 2002. Whatever challenges against the reopening of the case, if at all available to the petitioner, should have been canvassed in that revision and not as a challenge to the present order impugned which had been passed pursuant to remission complying with the directions issued by this Court. The learned Govt.Pleader also invited my attention that the ceiling case was reopened on 10.2.1991 and notice was issued to the CRP.56/09 4 assesee on 12.3.1992. The proviso to Section 85 (9A) of the Land Reforms Act barred reopening of the case only after the cut off date of 20.5.1992 is the submission of the learned Govt.Pleader, which is not disputed. When that be so, there is no merit in the challenge that the reopening of the case was against the proviso to Section 85(9A) of the KLR Act or for any other reason acceptable under law. It is interesting to note that petitioner has not claimed any right over the land which is sought to be taken over as excess land, but, had advanced a case that the land so directed to be surrendered is under the possession of someone else. That case has been found to be false. When he has advanced such a case that the land is held by someone else, needless to say, he cannot be aggrieved by the order passed by the Taluk Land Board for surrender of that land as excess land held by him. More over, a challenge under Section 103 of the KLR Act in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by this Court is permissible only where the authority under the above Act has decided erroneously, or failed to decide, any question of law. No question of law is canvassed or pointed out to assail the order passed by the CRP.56/09 5 Taluk Land Board impugned in the revision. On that ground also, the revision lacks merit and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp