IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 29646 of 2003(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. MADHUSOODANAN S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHETTITHARAKADU HOUSE, MOOLANKODE, KIZHAKKENCHERRY VILLAGE, PALAKKAD. 2. VELAYUDHAN S/O. APPU, AGED 73 YEARS, IN DO.DO. BY MR.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. MR.K.JAYAKUMAR, MR.P.B.KRISHNAN, MR.M.K.SREEGESH, MR.HARISH R. MENON. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, ALATHUR. 4. DAMODARAN, S/O. APPU, KOTTAKKAD HOUSE, MOOLANCODE, KIZHAKKENCHERRY VILLAGE, PALAKKAD. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. M.L. SAJEEVAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.29646/2003-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.SM 1488/80 DTD. 26/06/03 PASSED BY THE CHAIRMAN, TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.29646 of 2003 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: i) Set aside Ext.P1 in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court; ii) Declare that the petitioners cannot be dispossessed the lands in Sy.No.459/3, 448/7 and 455/1 in Kizhakkencherry II village in view of the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act 1999; iii) Issue such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant on the facts and in the circumstances of the case including the cost of this Writ Petition." 2. Petitioners, two in number, are claiming right over the land determined as excess area to be surrendered by a declarant in a ceiling proceedings by W.P.(C).No.29646 of 2003 :: 2 :: the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad. After due enquiry, the Taluk Land Board directed the declarant to surrender 2.77 acres of land as excess area possessed by him over the ceiling limit. The declarant challenged that order filing an original petition before the court, in which setting aside the order the Taluk Land Board it was directed to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law. The declarant thereupon filed an option statement that he was prepared to surrender another property having an extent of 2.28 acres in lieu of the area determined as the excess land to be surrendered by him. The Taluk Land Board after conducting enquiry over the option made by the declarant found that the alternate site offered had been transferred by him much earlier, the transferees are in possession and transaction in their favour are valid under Section 84 of the Act. So rejecting the offer of alternate site made by the W.P.(C).No.29646 of 2003 :: 3 :: declarant Ext.P1 order was passed directing the authorised officer to take possession of the 2.77 Acres of land, determined earlier as the excess area to be surrendered by the declarant. That Ext.P1 order is challenged by the petitioners, third parties setting up right over such land contending that they are protected from eviction under Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, 1999 [Act 26 of 1999]. The 1st petitioner claims possession of 2 Acres of land in Survey No.459/3, and the 2nd petitioner, 0.77 acres of land in Survey No.459/3, 448/7 and 455/1 of Kizhakkencherry II Village, which form part of 2.77 acres of land ordered to be taken as the excess land of the declarant. The relief canvassed in the writ petition is not to dispossess the petitioners in view of the statutory embargo covered by the [Act 26/99], which according to the petitioners are applicable to them as they are small land holders. They are not liable to be W.P.(C).No.29646 of 2003 :: 4 :: evicted under Ext.P1 order of the Taluk Land Board as they are entitled to the benefit of the above Act, is the case of the petitioners. 3. I heard the learned counsel fo the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. 4. Having regard to the facts presented and submissions made, I find, this court in its writ jurisdiction cannot sit in judgment as to the entitlement of the petitioner as to whether they are entitled to claim the benefits of Act 26/99. In case the petitioners are entitled to any benefit under that Act, it is for the petitioners to establish such claim by taking appropriate proceedings in the proper forum in accordance with law. Challenge by the petitioners, third parties, against Ext.P1 order of the Taluk Land Board invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court cannot be entertained. If at all they have any right over the property which is ordered to be taken in as W.P.(C).No.29646 of 2003 :: 5 :: the excess area of declarant, needless to say it has to be agitated as provided under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to canvass their claim, if any, raised before the appropriate forum, as provided by law, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy//