IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 38 of 2002(D) --------------------- SM.69/1976 of TALUK LAND BOARD, ALATHUR .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: PETITIONERS ----------------------------- 1. A.BABU RAJENDRA PRASAD, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.M.R.SREEDHARAN, CHEDAYANKALAYI, KANJIKODE WEST P.O.,PALAKKAD-7. 2. A.DEVASASAN, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.M.R.SREEDHARAN, CHADAYANKALAYI KANJIKODE WEST P.O., PALAKKAD -7. BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.CHINNAN SRI.V.R.REJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS & LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED DECLARANT ARMUGHAN ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, ALALTHUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, ALATHUR. 4. M.K.LEELAVATHY, W/O.P.ARUMUGHAN, MANHALUR, THENKURUSSI, ALATHUR TALUK,PALAKKAD. 5. A.PUSHPAVATHY, W/O. M.SUKUMARAN, EZHUTHACHAN VEEDU, P.O.PUTHUR, PALAKKAD-1. 6. A.THILAKAVATHY,W/O.M.R.SREEDHARAN, M.V.B.K.HOUSE, CHEDAYANKALAYI, KANJIKODE WEST P.O. PALAKKAD -7. 7. A.PRABHALAVATHY, W/O. MOHANAN V., PARAKKALAM HOUSE, NEAR GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, MEMMARA, PALAKKAD. 8. A.PADMAVATHY, W/O. KALADHARAN C., MAMPALLAM HOUSE, KAMBRATH CHALLA, MUTHALAMADA P.O. KOLLENKODE VIA., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MAT.PAI -R4 TO R8 GOVERNMENT PLEADERSMT. LATHA THANKAPPAN -R1 TO R3 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN C.M.P. NO.86 OF 2002 IN C.R.P. NO.38 OF 2002. DISMISSED 7.1.2008 Sd/- (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 38 OF 2002 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008 O R D E R The Taluk Land Board initiated suo motu proceedings against Armughan, the father of the revision petitioners and respondents 4 to 8 herein which culminated in a final order directing him to surrender 4.57 acres of land held in excess of the ceiling limit. The revision petitioners are the two sons of the declarant, each claiming one-third share by birth in the properties held by their father. They filed a petition under Section 85 (8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 to reopen the case. According to the revision petitioners, the Taluk Land Board failed to enter a finding as to whether the properties were ancestral in character. 2. The matter was once considered by this Court in C.R.P. No.1140 of 1988 and this Court by order dated 31.7.1989 specifically directed the Taluk Land Board to enquire into the contentions raised by the revision petitioners and to give them an opportunity to produce evidence in support of their case that the properties involved were ancestral. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the Taluk Land Board revised the C..R.P. NO.38/2002 2 proceedings on 1.10.2001 which is the impugned order in this Civil Revision Petition. 3. The Taluk Land Board perused the documents produced on behalf of the claimants. The Taluk Land Board examined Partition deed No.1083/43 of S.R.O. Coyalmannam and found that only an extent of 0.87 acre was set apart in favour of Pazhanimala, the grandfather of the revision petitioners. After going through the version of the witness who was examined in support of the case, the Taluk Land Board came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to show that large extent of properties were devolved in favour of Pazhanimala from his father Azhakelan or the properties acquired by Pazhanimala were from the income derived from the property allotted in the partition deed. The Taluk Land Board also found that no properties shown in A schedule to the partition deed 1083/43 have been gifted in favour of the assessee and, therefore, concluded that it was apparently clear that the said item of property with 12.73 acres is not ancestral. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted before me that due to compelling circumstances, the revision petitioners were not in a position to appear before the court for giving oral evidence . C..R.P. NO.38/2002 3 The only oral evidence was that of a witness which was not sufficient to enter any findings regarding the income utilised for the purchase of the properties claimed by the revision petitioners. The revision petitioners submitted that they propose to give oral evidence and additional documentary evidence, if any, in support of their claim and pleaded for an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. 5. In view of the above submission, I am of the view that an opportunity has to be given to the revision petitioners to substantiate their case. The revision petitioners are, therefore, at liberty to adduce further evidence, if any. The Taluk Land Board shall consider the evidence on record and any other evidence to be adduced and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six months from today. The order under revision is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration. The property declared as excess shall not be assigned or distributed to anybody till a final decision is taken. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C..R.P. NO.38/2002 4 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P.NO. 38 of 2002 O R D E R 7TH JANUARY, 2008