IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 2357 of 2002 AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD, THIRURANGADI IN CEILING CASE NO.M.3/90/LA6 DATED 29.8.2002. REVN. PETITIONERS: 1. EDAYODI KUNNATHODI ITHACHUTTI UMMA, W/O.LATE KUNHIKOMU HAJI, MATTATHOOR, OTHUKKUNGAL VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MOHAMMED BASHEER, S/O.LATE KUNHIKOMU HAJI, MATTATHOOR, OTHUKKUNGAL VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. ABDUL JALEEL, S/O.LATE KUNHIKOMU HAJI, MATTATHOOR, OTHUKKUNGAL VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. SMT.SUBAIDA, W/O.M.C.HAMSA HAJI, MACHENCHERRY HOUSE, KUTTIPALA P.O., EDARIKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER SRI.S.S.THAJUDEEN RESPONDENTS: 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, STATE LAND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, THIRURANGADI. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, THIRURANGADI. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MOONNIYOOR VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM. 5. KADAMPOTTU MAMMAD, S/O.LATE KUNHIKOMU HAJI, MATTATHOOR, OTHUKKUNGAL VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.DILEEP THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.M.P.NO.5893/2002 IN C.R.P.NO.2357/2002 DISMISSED 7/1/2008 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 2357 OF 2002 C -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th January, 2008 O R D E R Suo motu proceedings were initiated against Kadampattu Kunhikommu Haji, who did not file ceiling return. The State Land Board accorded sanction to initiate suo motu proceedings. Draft statement was issued, objections were called for and after considering the objections, the Taluk Land Board, as per the final order dated 24.9.1990, held that the family of the assessee was holding 10 acres and 36 ½ cents equivalent to 8.11 ½ standard acres as on 1.1.1970 and the extent being below the ceiling limit, it was held that the assessee need not surrender any land as excess land. 2. In the order passed by the Taluk Land Board on 24.9.1990, an extent of 7.91 acres of land was excluded as the said extent was acquired by the second assessee (wife of assessee No.1) as per the partition deed executed after 1.1.1970. Proceedings under Section 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act were initiated on getting sanction from the Land Board as per its proceedings dated 25.1.1991. Notice was issued to the assessees and objections were filed by them. The Taluk Land Board considered the objections and passed the final order dated 29.8.2002 and C.R.P. NO.2357 OF 2002 :: 2 :: it was held that the assessee is liable to surrender an extent of 5 acres and 31 ½ cents equivalent to 3. 49 ½ standard acres. The order dated 29.8.2002 is challenged in this Revision. 3. As per the order dated 29.8.2002, the Taluk Land Board overruled objection Nos.1 and 2 and partly allowed objection No.3. While considering objection No.3, the Taluk Land Board exempted an extent of 15 cents as shown in page 3 of the order. The other objections were rejected. Additional objection No.2 in respect of RS.No.328/9 was also rejected by the Taluk Land Board. 4. Objection No.1 relates to several survey numbers as mentioned in page 2 of the order. The Taluk Land Board relied on the report submitted by the Authorised Officer and held as follows: “The A.O has reported that the above lands were acquired by the assessee as per the partition deed No.506/74 dated 23.2.1974. The assessee has not produced any records to prove the claim of tenancy. Hence the objection is overruled.” I am of the view that the Taluk Land Board has not properly considered the objections raised by the petitioners. The Taluk Land Board also failed to advert to the reports dated 16.4.1997 and 22.9.1997, submitted by the Special Deputy Tahsildar. It is true that the report dated 16.4.1997 was C.R.P. NO.2357 OF 2002 :: 3 :: submitted before the issue of notice to the assessees. After accepting the report dated 16.4.1997, the Chairman of the Taluk Land Board made a note that the full details necessary for considering the case under Section 87 of the Act were not reported by the Special Deputy Tahsildar and directed him to submit a further report. The Special Deputy Tahsildar submitted another report dated 22.9.1997. In the reports dated 16.4.1997 and 22.9.1997 mention is made about the objections now raised by the assessees. A reading of the two reports would show that the Sepcial Deputy Tahsildar was satisfied that several third parties are in possession of some of the lands. The Special Deputy Tahsildar reported that notice should be issued to the interested parties who are in possession of the lands. However, the Special Deputy Tahsildar submitted another report dated 8.5.2001. On a perusal of the said report, it is seen that many of the details which were furnished in the reports dated 16.4.1997 and 22.9.1997 are not available in the third report dated 8.5.2001. In the report dated 8.5.2001, the objections raised by the assessees were considered. That does not mean that the true facts should not be considered by the Taluk Land Board. The question to be enquired into is whether the assessees are holding excess lands. In that process, the Taluk Land Board has to consider the question whether any such land included in the assessees' account is held by tenants. It is prima facie shown in the form of a report submitted by the Special Deputy Tahsildar C.R.P. NO.2357 OF 2002 :: 4 :: that third parties are claiming tenancy right. When the Authorised Officer reported that notice should be issued to those persons, it was incumbent upon the Taluk Land Board to have issued notice to those persons. The objections of the assessees were dealt with in a perfunctory manner in the third report submitted by the Special Deputy Tahsildar. That is not an answer to the question whether third parties are genuinely claiming rights over the properties. The Taluk Land Board has, in the three sentences referred to and quoted above, dealt with the objections. I am of the view that the Taluk Land Board has not discharged its functions as per the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Notice should have been issued to the persons who were found to be in possession of certain items of properties and they should have been heard and an opportunity should have been afforded to them to substantiate their contentions. Notice could be issued to the third parties and a final and conclusive decision could be taken by the Taluk Land Board. Or else, at every stage of the proceedings when possession is attempted to be taken, those third parties will file claim petitions under Section 85(8) of the Act. To avoid such multiplicity of proceedings and to have an effective and complete adjudication of the disputes, it was only proper and expedient to issue notice to the third parties who were found to be in possession of some of the items as disclosed in the reports submitted by the Special Deputy Tahsildar. C.R.P. NO.2357 OF 2002 :: 5 :: 5. In so far as objection No.3 is concerned, as stated above, the Taluk Land Board exempted an extent of 15 cents in total. In the report dated 16.4.1997, the Special Deputy Tahsildar has dealt with Sy.Nos.328/9, 287/2, 464/4, 295/7 and 261/4. Objection No.3 relates to these survey numbers as well, except Sy.Nos.295/7 and 261/4. The report dated 22.9.1997 also deals with these survey numbers. In view of the finding rendered by me as mentioned above, I am inclined to hold that objection No.3 was also not properly dealt with by the Taluk Land Board. 6. Additional objection No.2 in respect of RS.No.328/9 was rejected by the Taluk Land Board on the ground that the assessee has not produced any document to prove that she has title to only 65 cents of land in RS.No.328/9. The objection was accordingly overruled by the Taluk Land Board. In the report dated 16.4.1997, the Special Deputy Tahsildar has reported that the actual extent available in this survey number is only 65 cents. In the further report dated 22.9.1997, the Special Deputy Tahsildar stated that the assessees inherited only 35/72 shares in the property belonging to the father of Ithachutti Umma and that she got only 65 cents of land. In the third report dated 8.5.2001 also the Special Deputy Tahsildar has referred to the judgment in O.S.No.532 of 1966, Munsiff's Court, Parappanangadi and has stated that Ithachutti Umma had obtained only 65 cents of land. It is also stated in the report C.R.P. NO.2357 OF 2002 :: 6 :: that the connected records should be directed to be produced by the declarant. I am of the view that the Taluk Land Board was not justified in rejecting additional objection No.2 in one sentence without referring to any of the three reports submitted by the Special Deputy Tahsildar. 7. The facts and circumstances mentioned above compels me to remand the matter to the Taluk Land Board for fresh disposal, though it would be against the spirit of the Land Reforms Act to remand the case to the Taluk Land Board particularly when the proceedings were initiated several years ago. The objections raised by the declarant/assessee are liable to be considered with all seriousness by the Taluk Land Board. A person who is not liable to surrender excess land cannot be compelled to surrender his valuable land, based on an order which does not consider the contentions of the assessees properly. The order impugned in this Revision is such an order and I am not inclined to uphold the order passed by the Taluk Land Board. Accordingly, the order passed by the Taluk Land Board dated 29.8.2002 is set aside. The Taluk Land Board shall consider the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. The Taluk Land Board shall also issue notice to the affected parties and whose names are mentioned in the reports submitted by the Special Deputy Tahsildar. After affording an opportunity to all such parties to put forward their contentions and to produce C.R.P. NO.2357 OF 2002 :: 7 :: documents, the Taluk Land Board shall conclusively and finally dispose of the ceiling case at the earliest. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as indicated above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- C.R.P.NO. 2357 OF 2002 O R D E R 7th January, 2008 -------------------------------------------