IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 OP(C).No. 25 of 2011(O) ----------------------------- CR.1423/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, ERNAD .................... PETITIONERS ----------------- 1. VELAYUDHAN NAIR, S/O.RAMAN NAIR, CHAPPLANGAL, PRIYA NIVAS, KEEZHUPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SULOCHANA, W/O.VELAYUDHAN NAIR, CHAPPLANGAL, PRIYA NIVAS, KEEZHUPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A SRI.K.C.KIRAN SMT.P.A.SHEEJA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, ERNAD, POST MANJERI-676121. 3. NADUVATHEDATHU ILLATH MADHAVI ANTHARJANAM, W/O.VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, PATHANAPURAM, AREEKODE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 673639. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs. W.P.(C). NO. O.P.C. NO.25/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.R.P. NO.2375/1999 DATED21/06/2001. P2: COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20/10/2004. P3: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AUTHORISED OFFICER IN C.R. NO.1423/1973 DATED 20/02/2006. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD IN C.R. NO.1423/73 DATED 08/02/2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- O.P.(Civil) No.25 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April, 2011 Judgment Heard both sides. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that claim petitions were filed by Velayudhan Nair and Sulochana under Section 85 (1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act claiming exemption of one acre each, which were stated to have been obtained by them from the original tenant Sankaran Nair. It was contended that Sankaran Nair had obtained oral lease of the aforesaid property from the declarant's family prior to 1.4.1964. It is seen that earlier Velayudhan Nair and Sulochana, the petitioners herein and other claimants had filed C.R.P.No.2375 of 1999 seeking a direction to the Taluk Land Board to give opportunities to the petitioners to prove their respective claims. Ext.P1 is the copy of the order passed in the aforesaid C.R.P. It was contended that the Taluk Land Board without considering the direction issued by this court in C.R.P.No.952 of 1984, passed the impugned order. It was held in Ext.P1 that the Taluk Land Board should issue notice afresh to the petitioners in that 2 C.R.P. and after considering the objections raised by the petitioners, the Taluk Land Board was directed to pass fresh orders on the question of taking of land. 3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.T.Krishnanunni points out that in pursuance of the notice issued by the Taluk Land Board, the petitioners appeared before the Taluk Land Board and filed statements on 20.10.2004. Ext.P3 is the report submitted by the authorised officer on 20.2.2006 in which it was stated that the predecessor-in-interest of the claimants was in possession of the property as a tenant and that he had obtained purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal in S.M.Proceedings No.452/84 and that purchase certificate 78 of 1988 was issued. The report of the authorised officer would indicate that the original tenant Sankaran Nair was in possession of the property and that he had effected mutation therein. It was also stated that Sankaran Nair was residing in the house situated in that property and that after the assignment in favour of the petitioners, they are enjoying the said properties as their residential gardens. Learned counsel points out that the impugned order (Ext.P4) was passed by the Taluk Land Board on 8.2.2005, long before the report of the authorised officer was obtained. That means, the Taluk Land 3 Board has actually ignored the directions issued by this court that the claims of the petitioners should be considered after giving notice to them. In fact, claim statements were filed by the claimants and that a report of the authorised officer was called for. But before getting the report, the impugned order was passed. 4. The challenge is only with regard to the claims raised by the petitioners herein and only to that extent Ext.P4 order is challenged. It was stated in Ext.P4 that the claims of the tenants will be taken up as and when received. The procedure so adopted by the Taluk Land Board is not correct. The Taluk Land Board has to consider the claims of the petitioners herein and should take a decision as to whether the claims raised by them are sustainable. To that extent, Ext.P4 order is set aside. The Taluk Land Board, Ernad, the second respondent, will consider the claims of the petitioners afresh on merits and till then the petitioners should not be dispossessed, if not already dispossessed. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd 4 5