IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 CRP.No. 1933 of 1998(F) ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER A7.6489/1992(2) OF TALUK LAND BOARD, TIRUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------- BEERAN KUTTY, S/O.SOOPY AGED 44 YEARS VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALAPAKANCHERY AMSOM THOZHUVENOOR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD TIRUR 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER KALAPAKANCHERY 3. THE STATE OF KERALA REP BY CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M R SABU THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- CRP No.1933 of 1998 ------------------------------------- Dated 12th January 2010 Order SM proceedings were initiated against the father of the petitioner as S.M.35/77/M1. By order dated 03.11.1997 in the said proceedings, the petitioner's father was directed to surrender 1.39 acres of land, which was found to be in excess of the ceiling area admissible to the statutory family. The said order was challenged by the petitioner's father by filing CRP No.3835/77 before this Court. He produced certain documents along with the CRP and contended that an extent of 3.80 acres comprised in Survey No.122/2, did not wholly belong to him and he had only one half share in it. For considering the said contention, the SM proceedings were remanded to the Taluk Land Board. After remand, the Taluk Land Board dropped the proceedings. Subsequently, it seems, the proceedings were re-opened on the same ground. But, again it was dropped. Surprisingly, in 1992, CRP No.1933/98 2 taking recourse to the provisions of S.85(9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, the matter was again re-opened and on receipt of notice, the petitioner filed a representation before the Taluk Land Board. But, the Taluk Land Board passed an order, deciding to continue the proceedings. The petitioner's brother filed an OP before this Court as OP No.10423/1992 and sought for stay of further proceedings by the Taluk Land Board. Though, initially there was a stay order in that OP, later, the OP itself was dismissed. Against the Judgment in OP No.10423/92, WA No.363/1999 was filed. This Court by its Judgment dated 13.12.2007 allowed the Writ Appeal and directed the appellant to file his objections before the Taluk Land Board and the Taluk Land Board was directed to hear the appellant and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 2. The revision petitioner would point out that in the light of the Judgment in the above said Writ Appeal, the impugned order cannot survive. He would complain that before passing the impugned order, he was not heard as directed in the CRP No.1933/98 3 Judgment in the Writ Appeal. 3. Obviously, by virtue of the Judgment in WA No.363/99, the impugned order cannot survive. Accordingly, the CRP is allowed. The impugned order (A7-6489/92(2) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Taluk Land Board for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in the Judgment in WA No.363/99. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta CRP No.1933/98 4 P.BHAVADASAN, J. ======================== CRP No.1933 of 1998 ======================== ORDER DATED 12TH JANUARY 2010 ========================= CRP No.1933/98 5