IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2011 / 3RD BHADRA 1933 CRP.No. 824 of 1997(E) ---------------------- SMP NO.471/PPM DATED 19-3-1996 OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PATHANAPURAM. REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY SMT.R.SUSEELA BHAT, SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS & LEGAL HEIRS OF 1ST RESPONDENT:- --------------- M.SHAHUL HAMEED, LAILA BUILDINGS, KUNDAYAM, PATHANAMTHITTA. (EXPIRED) ADDL. 2. FIROSE KHAN, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, TC 25/2933, HARMA DASAM LANE, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-35. 3. SMT.LAILA BEEVI, D/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, ANEZ VIHAR, PETTA, PATHANAMTHITTA PO. 4. SAFARULLAKHAN, S/O. SHAHUL HAMEED, SOORYA, KUNDAYAM, PATHANAPURAM PO, PIN 689 605. 5. SHANAVASKHAN, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, LAILA BUILDINGS, MOOLAKKADA, KUNDAYAM, PATHANAPURAM PO, PIN-689605. 6. SMT. NARGEES BEEGUM, D/O.SHAHUL HAMEED. ADDL. RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25-8-2011 IN I.A.NO.22/2007. ADV. SRI.L.MOHANAN FOR R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= C.R.P. 824 of 1997 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 25th day of August, 2011 0 R D E R Challenge in this revision petition under section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 by the State is to the order dated March 19, 1996 of the Taluk Land Board, Pathanapuram holding that deceased first respondent who is the assessee in the case does not possess any excess land to surrender. 2. Suo motu proceedings were initiated against the deceased first respondent (assessee) as SMP 471/PPM by the Taluk Land Board, Pathanapuram alleging that the assessee is having excess land liable to be surrendered under section 82 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Draft statement and notice were issued to the assessee inviting his objections. Thereafter by order dated July 9, 1981 the assessee was directed to surrender an excess land of CRP 824/97 2 1.94.550 acres. The total extent of the land held by the assessee was shown as 22.90.500 acres. Out of this 5.95.950 acres were shown as exempted categories under section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The assessee challenged the said order before this Court in C.R.P. No.1419/1982 on the ground that the properties purchased by his elder sons and daughters were also taken as the lands belonging to him and that if these properties are excluded the assessee is not liable to surrender any land. This Court by order dated June 3, 1986 set aside the order of the Taluk Land Board and remanded the case to the Taluk Land Board to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. After the remand the Taluk Land Board issued a fresh draft statement exempting 7.33.950 acres and directing the assessee to surrender 0.56.500 acres of land. After hearing the asessee and considering the documents produced by him the Taluk Land Board by the impugned order dated March 19, 1996 held that the assessee has no excess land to surrender. The State has now come up in CRP 824/97 3 revision challenging the said order of the Taluk Land Board. 3. The only question, which arises for consideration in this revision, is whether the deceased first respondent (assessee) was in possession of land in excess of ceiling area and if so, what is the extent ? 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State argued that the finding of the Taluk Land Board that the family of the assessee is entitled to 10 standard acres to the maximum of 15 ordinary acres and one acre each for adult unmarried members making the total extent to 17 acres, excluding the exempted item, is illegal and wrong and that clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 82 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act provides that a family is entitled to an extent of 10 standard acres subject to minimum of 12 and maximum of 15 ordinary acres and that adult persons whether married or unmarried are not included in the statutory family. There is force in the above contention. 5. Section 82 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act reads thus:- CRP 824/97 4 “82. Ceiling area -- (1) The ceiling area of land shall be,-- (a) in the case of an adult unmarried person or a family consisting of a sole surviving member, five standard acres, so however that the ceiling area shall not be less than six and more than seven and a half acres in extent; b) in the case of a family consisting of two or more, but not more than five members, ten standard acres, so however that the ceiling area shall not be less than twelve and more than fifteen acres in extent; c) in the case of a family consisting of more than five members, ten standard acres increased by one standard acre for each member in excess of five, so however that the ceiling area shall not be less than twelve and more than twenty acres in extent; and d) in the case of any other person, other than a joint family, ten standard acres, so however that the ceiling area shall not be less than twelve and more than fifteen acres in extent.” 6. Section 2(14) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act defines the word “family” as the husband, wife and their unmarried minor children or such of them as exist. CRP 824/97 5 7. In the present case family of the assessee consists of five members as on 1-1-1970 i.e., the assessee Shahul Hameed, wife Thankapillai, minor sons Safarullakhan and Shanavaskhan and minor daughter Nargees Beegum, as seen from the draft statement issued to him. That being so, the family of the assessee is entitled to retain only 15 ordinary acres, excluding the exempted items as provided under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 82 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Therefore, the above finding of the Taluk Land Board appears to be not correct. 8. Even then I am of the view that the assessee is not in possession of excess land. The total extent of the land held by the assessee was shown as 22.90.500 acres. Item 35 in the draft statement is shown as 83 cents in Survey No.3153/5 in Pattazhi Village. On physical verification by the Special Tahsildar, the correct extent of the land was found to be 55.500 cents. The said property was purchased by sale deed No.618/1973 of Pathanapuram S.R.O. That being so, the total extent of land held by the assessee is CRP 824/97 6 22.63 acres (22.90.500 - 00.27.500). Out of this 1 acre 12 cents in Sy. No.3263/1 of Pattazhi Village shown as item 44 in the draft statement and 29 cents in Sy. No.3267/2 of the same village shown as item 45 in the draft statement have to be excluded, as those properties were gifted by the grandmother of the assessee to his major daughter by gift deed No.5449/1968 of Pathanapuram S.R.O., which is found to be correct by the Taluk Land Board. Out of this extent only 1 acre 12 cents of land is shown as exempted items. Remaining 29 cents has also to be exempted. That being so the total exempted category of the land comes to 7.62.950 (7.33.950 + 0.29.000) i.e., 7.63 acres. The assessee is entitled to retain 15 ordinary acres excluding the exempted items. Therefore, he is now entitled to retain 22.63 acres (15 acres + 7.63 acres). That being so there is no excess land to be surrendered by the assessee. It follows that the finding of the Taluk Land Board that the assessee has no land in excess of the ceiling area, though on another ground, has only to be confirmed. CRP 824/97 7 9. In the result, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mn. CRP 824/97 8 P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ C.R.P. 824 of 1997 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ 0 R D E R