IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 CRP.No. 1966 of 2003() ---------------------- CR.18/1980 of TALUK LAND BOARD, ERNAD .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. CHAKKALAKUNNAN ABDUL KHADER, S/O. ALAVI MOLLA, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, KOORIMANNIL HUSSAIN, S/O.KOORIMANNIL- KUNHIMOHAMMED, AGED 34 YEARS, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KADERI ASSAINAR, S/O. AHAMMEDKUTTY, AGED 66 YEARS, VENGALLUR DESOM, ANAKKAYAM AMSOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. MAMPALLY SALEEM, S/O. MOHAMMED HAJI, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, PUTHANPEEDIYAKKAL MOHAMMADALI HAJI, S/O. ALI, ERUVATTI DESOM, ELANGOOR POST, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, TALUK LAND BOARD, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER: SRI P R JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.1966 of 2003 --------------------------------------- Dated this 07th day of June, 2010 ORDER Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents. 2. Petitioners are claimants before the Taluk Land Board, Ernad, having raised their claim under section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short, “the Act”) in respect of properties referred to in the respective claim petitions. Petitioner No.1 claimed right of tenancy over 5.81 acres in R.S.Nos.367 and 368 of Kanavur Village, having purchased the land from one Hydrose Haji as per registered document No.3444 of 1984. The said Hydrose Haji claimed to have obtained an oral lease of the property from the declarant in the year 1962. Hydrose Haji purchased the said property from the declarant as per document No.2471 of 1979 and obtained purchased certificate in S.M.P.No.204 of 1981 of Land Tribunal, Manjeri. He produced photocopy of document No.3444 of 1984, purchase certificate and receipts for payment of land revenue. Petitioner No.2 claimed right of tenancy in respect of 7.50 acres in R.S.No.355 and claimed to have obtained purchase certificate issued by the Deputy Collector (L.A.) in S.M.P.No.892 of 1981. He claimed to have purchased the land as per document C.R.P.No.1966 of 2003 : 2 : No.333 of 1980 (that document was not produced before the Taluk Land Board). Petitioner No.3 claimed right over 7 acres of land in R.S.No.354/2 and 355/2 having purchased the property from Mohamed Ishaque and others as per document No.833 of 1980. He claimed to have obtained purchase certificate in respect of the said land in S.M.P.No.1487 of 1980. The Taluk Land Board vide impugned order observed that purchase certificates are obtained fraudulently and collusively after initiation of ceiling case against the declarant and hence cannot be accepted. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing and adduce evidence in respect of their respective claims. Learned counsel submits that this court as per order dated 07-04-1999 in O.P.No.9127 of 1999 directed the Taluk Land Board to consider claim petitions preferred by the petitioners. But, petitioners were not given notice of the proceeding. According to the learned counsel, learning that properties referred to in the claim petitions are about to be allotted to different persons petitioners filed O.S.No.120 of 2003 in the court of learned Munsiff, Manjeri. In the written statement filed by the respondents, there was no mention about disposal of the claim petitions by the impugned order. Later, petitioners issued notice to the respondents threatening them with action for contempt. It is only from the reply to that notice that petitioners learned about C.R.P.No.1966 of 2003 : 3 : disposal of claim petitions vide the impugned order. Learned counsel seeks an opportunity to adduce evidence before Taluk Land Board. Learned Government Pleader would contend that petitioner had sufficient opportunity and produced their documents also before the Taluk Land Board. 3. The impugned order does not show that petitioners were given notice before the claim petitions were disposed of. Learned counsel for petitioners would say that the documents referred to in the impugned order were produced along with the claim petitions and not at the time of hearing. There is nothing to hold otherwise. There is also nothing to show that notice was given to the petitioner for hearing. As such, principles of natural justice has been violated by the respondents. The impugned order, for the said reason cannot stand. Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 21-11-1999 is set aside. The Taluk Land Board is directed to dispose of the claim petitions afresh after giving opportunity for hearing to the petitioners. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-