IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 CRP.No. 68 of 2001(E) LB.476/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD REVN. PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS: 1. K.V. SREEDHARAN, S/O.VELANDI. 2. K.V. MURUKAN S/O. VELANDI. 3. HARIDAS, S/O. VALIKUTTY. 4. SUKUMARAN, S/O. VALLIKUTTY. 5. GOPI, S/O. VALLIKUTTY. ALL ARE RESIDING AT KALATHILL HOUSE,. MUTTIKULANGARA P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON RESPONDENTS: 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD TALUK. 4. T.K. RAMANIDEVI, WIDOW OF K. VELAYUDHAN. 5. K.V. SAJEEV, S/O. K. VELAYUDHAN. 6. K.V. KRISHNALATHA, D/O. K. VELAYUDHAN. (RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT KADAMPADI HOUSE, MUTTIKULANGARA, PALAKKAD) BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. L.G. SURESH BABU FOR R1TO3 SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD FOR R4 TO R6 SRI.M.HARISHARMA FOR R4 TO R6 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2008 ALONG WITH CRP NO. 169 OF 2001, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN C.M.P. NO.123 OF 2001 IN C.R.P. NO. 68 OF 2001. DISMISSED 16.9.2008 Sd/-(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NOS. 68 & 169 OF 2001 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008 O R D E R The revision petitioners in both these cases are applicants under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the K.L.R. Act"). These revisions are directed against the order of the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad dated 31.10.2000 in LB No.476 of 1973. By order dated 17.6.1997, the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad directed the declarant Sri. K. Velayudhan to surrender an extent of 67.66 acres of land finding that the declarant was in possession of the same as excess land. The revision petitioners in C.R.P. No.68 of 2001 contended that they have produced 49 tax receipts out of which 18 receipts pertain to the period from 15.1.1947 to 26.11.1969. According to the claimants, the irresistible conclusion therefore is that the assessee had no right as on 1.1.1970. It is their further case that the land in question is in their possession and enjoyment for decades and that the same is being used as a threshing ground. The claimants contended before the Taluk Land Board that they have got exclusive right over an extent of 2.87 acres in Survey No.93/6A of Puduppariyaram II Village and that a portion of this property was the C.R.P.NOS.68 & 169/2001 2 subject matter of O.A. No.27 of 2004 on the file of the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode. In paragraph 7 of the order, the Forest Tribunal discussed the right of the parties and held as follows: "The petitioners' grandmother is shown in Ext.A1as the owner of the property. All the above details available in Ext.A1 show that the property was possessed and enjoyed by the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest before and after 10.5.71. Exts.A21 to A32 tax receipts are produced to prove payment of tax even after the appointed day. The oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the petitioners sufficiently prove that the disputed land was not a forest as on the appointed day within the meaning of Sec. 2(f)(ii) of the Vesting Act." Accordingly, the Forest Tribunal granted the declaration sought for holding that the property was not a private forest as on 10.5.1971. 2. The extent of property covered by O.A. No.27 of 2004 is 1.30 acres comprised in Survey No.93/6A of Puthuppariyaram II Village. Based on these materials, it is contended that the Taluk Land Board ought to have considered the materials on record and evaluated the same and allowed the petition filed under Section 85(8) of the K.L.R. Act. 3. The revision petitioners in C.R.P. No.169 of 2001 are one K.K. C.R.P.NOS.68 & 169/2001 3 Bhaskaran, K.K. Sukumaran and the legal heirs of K.K. Prabhakaran. Prabhakaran and Sukumaran claimed right over 1.40 acres of land comprised in Survey No.93/7A of Puduppariyaram II Village and Bhaskaran claimed right over 1.80 acres in the same survey number. All of them have a case that they were in possession and enjoyment of the property for the last several decades and have been using the land as a threshing ground. According to the claimants, they obtained right over the property along with certain other properties by registered partition deeds. Whether this property was vested property or not was considered by the Forest Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 999 of 1974 and 1008 of 1974 and by order dated 6.8.1977, the Forest Tribunal issued direction to release the property to the claimants. It is further contended by the revision petitioners that the properties claimed by them are not included in the family partition deed No.2316 of 1965 of S.R.O., Palakkad. 4. I have perused the judgment of this Court in M.F.A. No.270 of 1978 filed by the State of Kerala against the order of the Forest Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 999 of 1974 and 1008 of 1974. In the O.A. proceedings, the claimants have produced Exts.A1 to A4 and A6 to A10 tax receipts, Ext.A5 partition deed and Ext.A11 order of the Taluk Land Board. This Court confirmed the decision of the Forest Tribunal that the land acquired C.R.P.NOS.68 & 169/2001 4 by the petitioners did not vest in the State under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act. 5. After perusing the materials on record, I am of the view that there is force in the contention of the revision petitioners that the materials produced by them have not been discussed or evaluated by the Taluk Land Board in the proper perspective. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the Taluk Land Board is directed to reconsider the matter after discussing the entire materials produced by the revision petitioners. The revision petitioners are at liberty to produce evidence in support of their claim. The Taluk Land Board shall consider all the contentions raised by the revision petitioners including those discussed supra and take a decision within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the matter shall be reconsidered only for the purpose of adjudicating the right of the petitioners under Section 85(8) of the K.L.R. Act. The Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C.R.P.NOS.68 & 169/2001 5 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P. NOS.68 & 169/2001 O R D E R 16th September, 2008