IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 C.R.P.No. 638 of 2008(C) --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/01/2008 IN TLB NO.743/73/TBA. OF TALUK LAND BOARD, TALIPARAMBA. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ CLAIMANT: ------------------------------ SMT.UNNIPRAVAN SAROJINI, D/O. LATE KARAYIL CHIRUKANDAN, PERINGOME AMSOM DESOM, P.O. PERINGOME. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. TALUK LAND BOARD, TALIPARAMBA. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI. SHYSON P. MANGUZHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.R.P.No. 638/2008 ORDER ON I.A. NO.1894 OF 2008 IN C.R.P.No. 638 OF 2008 DISMISSED SD/- 25/08/2008 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE scm M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.No.638 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th August, 2008. O R D E R This petition is filed challenging the order passed by Taluk Land Board, Taliparamba, dated, 31.1.2008, dismissing the application filed under sub-section (8) of Section 85 of Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act'). The Taluk Land Board, as per order dated, 18.6.1976, found that father of the petitioner is in possession of surplus land, and accepted the surrender of the properties. Petitioner, the daughter, thereafter filed Annexure-A1 petition under sub-section (8) of Section 85 of the Act along with Annexure-A2 application to condone the delay. Under the impugned order, Taluk Land Board dismissed the application holding that when the statute provides for filing an application within a period of 60 days, application was filed beyound the period of 19 years, and delay cannot be condoned. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that petitioner has a very meritorious case, CRP.No.638 of 2008 2 and she has been in possession of the property claimed in the petition right from 1962 and has been paying the basic tax, and subsequently she obtained a purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal, and without notice to the petitioner and deciding her case, Taluk Land Board accepted surrender of a portion of the property in her possession and when petitioner came to know of the order, petition was filed and Taluk Land Board was not justified in dismissing the application without considering the merit. 3. Sub-section (8) of Section 85 of the Act provides that where the Taluk Land Board determines the extent of the land to be surrendered by any person, without hearing any person interested, such person may, within 60 days from the date of such determination, apply to the Taluk Land Board to set aside the order, and if he satisfies the Taluk Land Board that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing before the Taluk Land Board, it shall set aside the order and shall proceed under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) as the case may be. CRP.No.638 of 2008 3 4. The argument of the learned counsel is that petitioner is an interested person as she has been a cultivating tenant of the property and she has also obtained jenm right from the Land Tribunal and obtained a purchased certificate and the Taluk Land Board has passed the order without hearing the petitioner and so she is entitled to file an application under sub- section (8) of Section 85 of the Act. Learned counsel also argued that when the petitioner was not a party, she is entitled to file a petition, as and when she came to know about the order, and as Taluk Land Board is empowered to condone the delay, Taluk Land Board should have condoned the delay. 5. The declarant in the order passed by Taluk Land Board on 18.6.1976 is none other than the father of the petitioner. The question is whether the case of the petitioner that she was unaware of the order for more than 19 years from the date of the order of Taluk Land Board, could be believed or not. Taluk Land Board found that delay cannot be condoned. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said order, in the light of the relationship between the petitioner and the declarant. Added CRP.No.638 of 2008 4 to this, the delay is more than 19 years. In such circumstances, I do not find sufficient reason to interfere with the order passed by the Taluk Land Board, which is legal, regular and proper. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.