IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 21672 of 2004(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.N. AJITH, BAPPU ESTATE, S/O. M.P. DAMODARAN, VADUVACHAL P.O., WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. 2. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, VYTHIRI. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY ADV COMMISSIONER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.8.2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No. 21672/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT DTD.29.9.95. P3. COPY OF THE -DO- IN SLP NO.29959/95 DTD.29.1.96. P4. COPY OF THE ORDER BY R1 DTD.23.9.96. P5. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.16240/96. P6. COPY OF THE ORDER BY THE TALUK LAND BOARD, DTD.31.5.04. P7. COPY OF THE 1ST OPTION TO R2. P8. COPY OF THE 2ND OPTION. P9. COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD.10.3.04. P10. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.1.1.2005 BY THE TAHSILDAR, S.BATHER. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.21672 of 2004 ================== Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T This writ petition came up for hearing before me on 6.6.2008. After hearing both sides elaborately, since I felt that further information is necessary for disposal of the case, I passed the following order: “The petitioner purchased 16.37 acres of property from one Smt. Vimala Sukumaran on 6.7.1978, which according to the petitioner is a coffee estate in proceedings under the ceiling provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act. Petitioner claims exemption in respect of the said property. Without granting that exemption, by Ext.P1 order, the Taluk Land Board directed the petitioner to surrender 8.37 acres of land in resurvey Nos. 881/1A1 and 887. The said order was challenged by the petitioner. Ultimately the Supreme Court held that petitioner is entitled to exemption in respect of two acres as coffee plantation. In accordance with the Supreme Court Order, the petitioner along with his wife filed a joint statement in respect of the properties to be retained by them. Pursuant to that Ext.P6 revised order has been passed by the Taluk Land Board whereby the petitioner was directed to surrender 6.37 acres of land comprised in survey No. 2522 corresponding to old survey Nos. 881/1A1 and 887 of Thomattuchal Village. The petitioner is challenging that order. The contention of the petitioner is that by Ext.P1, the petitioner has been directed to surrender land in survey Nos. 881/1A1 and 887 and not 888/1A1 and therefore when revised order is passed the petitioner cannot be directed to surrender land in another survey number. This is the controversy involved in this writ petition. 2. Relying on the counter affidavit, the learned Government Pleader would argue that in Ext.P1, the survey number was mistakenly shown and the correct survey numbers are 888/1A1 and 887. In the counter affidavit it is stated that Ext.P1 was appropriately corrected by issuing a revised order dated 25.5.1994, which was received by the w.p.c.21672/04 2 petitioner on 17.6.1994. But it comes out that, that order was also challenged by the petitioner before this court which was further taken up before the Supreme Court in a SLP. While dismissing the SLP, Supreme Court permitted the petitioner to file an objection in respect of the same. Although the learned Government Pleader would contend that since SLP was dismissed, petitioner cannot now re-agitate the issue again, it is admitted that the Supreme Court had given permission to the petitioner to raise objections. That being so, it cannot be said to the final. In the above circumstances, I am of opinion that if petitioner actually owns property in survey No. 881/1A1 and 887, to the extent of 6.37 acres, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. But neither the counsel for the petitioner not the Government Pleader could assert with any amount of certainty that petitioner does or does not own 6.37 acres of land in survey Nos. 881/1A1 and 887. As such counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader are directed to produce appropriate documents to solve this issue either way.” 2. Now the learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner does not own any land in Survey Nos.881/1A1 and 887. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not have any documents to show that the petitioner owns any properties in survey Nos.881/1A1 and 887. But he would contend that the Government does not have power to correct the survey numbers as has been done. I do not think that I can countenance that contention at this point of time since the petitioner had in fact challenged said correction upto the Supreme Court and lost. The petitioner has only been given permission to raise objections, which can only be in respect of other matters and not in respect of the powers of the w.p.c.21672/04 3 Government to make corrections, which question has been finally settled by the Supreme Court. In the above circumstances, in so far as the petitioner cannot point out any property in Survey Nos.881/1A1 and 887 as belonging to the petitioner for surrender, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled any relief in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge