IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 CRP.No. 1175 of 2001(E) ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13/06/1996 IN C6 IN RD IS.31169/86/C6 of TALUK LAND BOARD, UDUMBANCHOLA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.A. SALIM RESPONDENT: ------------- SRI. P.R.RAMASUBRAHMANYA RAJA, POOLAPPALA, RAJAPALAYAM, SREE VALLA PUTHUR TALUK, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 1175 OF 2001 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008 O R D E R The State of Kerala is the revision petitioner. The challenge is against the order of the Taluk Land Board, Udumbanchola dated 13.6.1996 whereby the Taluk Land Board found that the declarant is not liable to surrender any land as excess land. 2. The Taluk Land Board, Udumbanchola initiated suo motu action against the respondent herein under Section 85(7) of the Kerala Land reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). A draft statement was issued to the respondent showing that the extent of land owned and held by him as on 1.1.1970 is 27.33 acres. The respondent appeared before the Land Tribunal land contended that out of the total extent, 25.33 acres are cardamom plantations and, therefore, liable to be exempted under the Act. In support of the above said contention, the respondent produced copy of the certificate of registration issued in Form B in the year 1982. The respondent also produced copy of the assessment order issued by the 2 Agricultural Income tax Officer for the period 1986-87. According to the revision petitioner, none of these documents would show that 25.33 acres of land are cardamom plantations prior to 1.4.1964. According to the revision petitioner, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the property in question is cardamom plantation liable to be exempted. 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. The order passed by the Taluk Land Board is a cryptic order without discussing the question to be considered for the purpose of deciding the issue and the contentions of the declarant. It is not clear from the order as to whether the property in question is a cardamom plantation as on the statutory date for the purpose of claiming exemption under Section 81 of the Act. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent had sold the entire extent of 25.33 acres of cardamom plantation to one P.R.Sarada Deepa vide Sale Deed Nos.2381/97 and 2383/97 of S.R.O. Udumbanchola in July, 1997 and the cardamom registration in the name of the respondent was surrendered and a new registration was obtained for the said plantation in the name of the transferee. 3 5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances stated above, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the Taluk Land Board. Hence, there will be a direction to the Taluk Land Board, Udumbanchola to consider the matter afresh in the light of the observations made above. The Taluk Land Board shall also issue notice to the transferee and give an opportunity to her to put forward her case. The parties are at liberty to adduce additional evidence, if any. The Taluk Land Board shall pass orders within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ 4 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P. NO. 1175/2001 O R D E R 27th June, 2008