IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST AUGUST 2011 / 10TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20807 of 2011(A) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- PRABALAN, S/O.(LATE) VELAYUDHAN, UPPUMANNUPADIKAYIL, THEKKEDESOM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 553. BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SMT.D.S.THUSHARA RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK LAND BOARD, CHITTUR-678 553, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD-678 001. 4. TAHSILDAR, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD-678 553. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 20807/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/05/1989 IN S.M.24/1980. P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS DATED 01/12/2010. P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13/12/2010 IN WPC.NO.37045/2010 P4: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 30/12/2010 BY CHAIRMAN OF TALUK LAND BOARD, CHITTUR. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER IN .M.24/1980 DATED 28/01/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J .............................................. W.P.(C).20807/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 1st day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT This is the fifth round of litigation arising out of a proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 2. Ext.P1 is an order passed by the Taluk Land Board on 29.5.1989 against the declarant in a proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. By this order, declarant was ordered to surrender 6.14 acres of land. Subsequent to Ext.P1, various litigations were instituted in relation to the said proceedings which includes three Cr.P.Cs. 3. Finally, Ext.P2 application was submitted by the petitioner on 1.12.2010, requesting for permitting him to exercise option to surrender the land in lieu of what is ordered in Ext.P1. Thereafter, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).37045/2010 seeking a direction for consideration of Ext.P1. By Ext.P3 judgment, this Court allowed the prayer. W.P.(C).20807/11 2 4. Accordingly, the matter was considered and Ext.P4 is the report submitted by the authorised Officer. In Ext.P4 report, it is stated that the land was resumed on 4.8.1987 and that the same has been distributed to 87 agricultural labourers. Subsequently the matter was considered by the Taluk Land Board and Ext.P5 order was passed. In Ext.P5, it has been stated thus:- “As per the Honourable High Court's direction notices were issued to Sri.Baby & 5 others for a hearing on 31.12.2010. The matter was also enquired through Authorised Officer. Advocate Satheesh was present for the petitioners and has requested 20 days time for filing statement and the same was allowed by the TLB. The case posted for hearing on 21.1.2011. None present on 21.1.2011 and the case again posted to 28.1.2011. Even after allowing time to the counsel for filing statement it was not submitted until 28.1.2011. The Authorised Officer has submitted his enquiry report dated 30.12.2010. The excess land ordered to surrender as per TLB's order dated 20.5.1986 has been taken possession on 4.8.1987. As per the District Collector's order the excess land W.P.(C).20807/11 3 was surveyed, marked and assigned to 87 land less agricultural labourers. The Taluk Land Board, Chittur, discussed the matter in detail. The procedures in this ceiling case was already completed as per the KLR Act. The possession of excess land was taken possession long period ago. These lands are already assigned and possession given to the 87 landless agricultural labourers. In these circumstances Ext.P2 cannot be considered. Hence the petition filed by Sri.Baby & 5 others is hereby rejected.” It is challenging Ext.P5, this writ petition is filed. 5. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Ext.P4 report is not in compliance with Section 105 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Considering the facts of this case, I am not inclined to accept the said contention. As already seen, if the petitioner or anybody had such a plea, it was open to them to raise such a contention before the Taluk Land Board itself. Petitioner does not have a case that such a plea was raised before the Taluk Land Board. On the other hand, Ext.P5 order itself show that the petitioner did not even choose to file a statement in the case. In such circumstances, if the Taluk Land Board has chosen to act upon W.P.(C).20807/11 4 Ext.P4 report, this Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not be justified in interfering with Ext.P5. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs