IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 298 of 2004(A) FROM THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2003 IN SM.1504/1981 OF TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD REVN. PETITIONERS: CLAIMANTS. ---------------------------- 1. ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY RAWTHER, ARANGATTIL HOUSE, KALLUR, MANKARA VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK. 2. ABDUL KHADER, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY RAWTHER, ARANGATTIL HOUSE, KALLUR, MANKARA VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.CHINNAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD. 4. AYISUMMA, W/O.KUNHUKUTTY RAWTHER, ARANGATTIL HOUSE, KALLUR P.O. MANKARA VIA, PALAKKAD 678 641. R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH R1, R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: I.A.NO.838/2004 IN C.R.P.NO.298/2004 DISMISSED 28/3/2008 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE APPENDIX COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.602 OF 1965 OF THE PARLI SUB REGISTRY DATED 2.6.1965. //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 298 OF 2004 A -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th March, 2008 O R D E R This Revision is filed by the claimants under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, challenging the order dated 30.12.2003 in S.M.No.1504 of 1981, on the file of the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad. 2. By the final order dated 23.9.1997, the Taluk Land Board held that the assessee, namely, Ayisumma, wife of late Kunhukutty Rawther, is liable to surrender an extent of 1.33 acres of land. The extent of land to be surrendered by the assessee includes an extent of 26 cents in Sy.No.13/4 of Mankara Village, Kallur Amsom. The revision petitioners, namely, Abdul Kareem and Abdul Khader, filed a petition under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, contending that they are in possession of an extent of 2.57 acres of land in Sy.No.13/4. According to them, they filed the claim petition since the Village Officer made an attempt to take possession of an extent of 26 cents of land from out of the 2.57 acres of land claimed by the petitioners. The claim petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Taluk Land Board by the order dated 22.12.2000, holding that the petition was time barred. The petitioners challenged that order in C.R.P.No.593 of 2001. As per the order dated C.R.P. NO.298 OF 2004 :: 2 :: 13.6.2002 in C.R.P.No.593 of 2001, this Court set aside the order of the Taluk Land Board and directed the Board to consider the claim petition on the merits. 3. Thereafter, the Taluk Land Board passed the present order dated 30.12.2003 dismissing the claim petition. The Taluk Land Board relied on the report of the Authorised Officer dated 10.12.2003, wherein it is stated that the petitioners did not adduce any sufficient evidence to prove their contention that an extent of 0.26 acres in Sy.No.13/4 in Mankara Village in Kallur Desom is in their possession. The report of the Authorised Officer is seen at page 155 of Volume II of the records. The report reads thus: “I have conducted enquiry in the matter after issuing notice to the petitioners. The petitioners were not adduce any sufficient evidence to prove the contention that an extent of 0.26 acres in Sy.No.13/4 in Kallur desom, in Mankara Village was in their possession. Hence the claim petition filed by the petitioners may be rejected.” 4. The petitioners had produced copy of document No.602 of 1965 in which they claimed title to the property in R.S.No.13/4. That is a document executed by one Muhammed Hussain Rawther in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners were minors at that time. An extent of 2.57 acres of land in R.S.No.13/4 claimed by the petitioners is item No.4 in C.R.P. NO.298 OF 2004 :: 3 :: document No.602 of 1965. The said document would indicate that item No.4 was purchased by Muhammed Hussain Rawther, the assignor, as per document No.125/1954. The petitioners have also produced the purchase certificate issued in S.M.No.319 of 1983, by the Land Tribunal No.I, Palakkad, wherein an extent of 2.57 acres in Sy.No.13/4 was also assigned in their favour. 5. The order passed by the Taluk Land Board does not indicate that the petitioners have produced any documents. What contention the petitioners did put forward and what rights did they claim in respect of the property are also not stated by the Taluk Land Board. The Taluk Land Board has simply rejected the claim petition without considering the case on the merits. The order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.593 of 2001 directing the Taluk Land Board to consider the case on the merits was not properly complied with by the Taluk Land Board. 6. When a person files a claim petition under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, the Taluk Land Board is bound to consider the case on the merits. If it is found that the claimant has title to the property claimed by him and that property is included in the account of the declarant or the assessee, the Taluk Land Board is bound to delete that item from the account of the declarant/assessee. Simply because a C.R.P. NO.298 OF 2004 :: 4 :: particular survey number is included in the final order passed in a ceiling case, that does not mean that all the persons who claim title to the property in that survey number, though they are not parties in that proceeding, are bound by that order. When a person, who was not a party to the proceeding, files a claim petition under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, it is the bounden duty of the Taluk Land Board to consider his case and find whether the claim made by the claimant is genuine. In the present case, the contention raised by the petitioners appear to be that under the pretext of the assessee having rights in Sy.No.13/4 of Kallur Desom, the property belonging to the petitioners is attempted to be taken possession of. The Authorised Officer is bound to identify the property claimed by the petitioners and to find out whether the property of the assessee in Sy.No.13/4 lies outside the property claimed by the claimant and if it is found so, that extent could be taken possession of. On the other hand, if no property other than the property claimed by the claimants is available in that survey number, necessarily that is a matter to be decided by the Taluk Land Board as to whether the declarant/assessee has title or whether the claimants have title. Such an exercise is not undertaken by the Taluk Land Board. The result is that injustice is caused to the claimants. A portion of the property which they claimed to have acquired in 1965 as per registered document in which reference is made to a registered document of 1954, is now being taken C.R.P. NO.298 OF 2004 :: 5 :: possession of as excess land of some other person and that too without considering the case put forward by the claimants. 7. The order passed by the Taluk Land Board necessarily has to be set aside. The Taluk Land Board shall consider the case afresh in the light of the observations made above. If it is found that the claimants have title to the property of 2.57 acres of land in Sy.No.13/4, that portion has to be excluded from the purview of being taken possession of as excess land belonging to the assessee. If there is other land in that survey number which could be attributed to the possession of the assessee, nothing prevents the Taluk Land Board from taking possession of that extent. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order impugned is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Taluk Land Board for fresh consideration on the merits. The Taluk Land Board shall hear the petitioners, consider the documents already produced by them and permit them to produce such other documents and finally decide the matter as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. Send back the records. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- C.R.P.NO. 298 OF 2004 A O R D E R 28th March, 2008 -------------------------------------------