IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 544 of 2005 --------------------- ( SR.800/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, PERINTALMANNA ) REVN. PETITIONER/ PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------- ABOOBACKER HAJI, S/O.KUNJAHAMMED HAJI, AGED 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOORIYAT VATTOMPARAMBIL KIZHATTOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. TALUK LAND BOARD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI V.T.K. MOHANAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO. 1440 OF 2005 IN C.R.P.NO.544 OF 2005 DISMISSED. 27.03.2008 SD/- K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE K.T. SANKARAN, J. ................................................................................... C.R.P. No. 544 OF 2005 ................................................................................... Dated this the 27th March, 2008 O R D E R The legal representative of the declarant in S.R.No.800 of 1973 challenges the order dated 18.03.2005 passed by the Taluk Land Board, Perinthalmanna. The Taluk Land Board had passed a final order dated 16.12.1981. That order was carried in revision and all the subsequent orders were challenged either by the declarant or by the claimants. Finally it was decided that the declarant is liable to surrender an extent of 20.04 acres. That order has become final. 2. Even in the matter of option, a Writ Petition was filed before the High Court by the Revision Petitioner as W.P.(C) 8700 of 2004. As per the order dated 12.03.2004, this Court directed the Taluk Land Board to consider the option statement . Thereafter, the Taluk Land Board considered the option statement. One of the submissions made by the petitioner was that the extent of 20.04 acres may be taken possession of from Sy.No.65/1A1 of Mulliyakurssi desom of Keezhattur village. The Taluk Land Board found that this request as such cannot not be granted in full. It was found that in Sy. No.65/1A1, the total extent included in the account of the declarant was only 14.71 acres. Therefore, the Taluk Land Board accepted the option made by the petitioner in respect of 14.71 acres of land in Sy.No.65/1A1. It was found by the Taluk Land Board that the balance extent of 5.33 acres in Sy.No. 65/1A1 is not included in the ceiling account of the declarant. Therefore, the option in respect of that land cannot be legally accepted. This finding of the Taluk Land Board is absolutely legal and proper. Therefore no interference is called for in the well considered order passed by the Taluk Land Board. 3. A total extent of 18.70 acres of land was taken possession of by the Taluk C.R.P. No. 544 OF 2005 2 Land Board. The balance to be taken possession of is an extent of 1.34 acres. The Taluk Land Board directed the petitioner to surrender this extent in the following manner. Village Desom Sy.No. Extent Kariavattom Pallikuth 35/6 35/7 0.90 acres 0.44 acres Total 1.34 acres 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at least, the petitioner may be permitted to offer other suitable land to satisfy this 1.34 acres. He submits that from the lands included in the ceiling account, other lands could be surrendered. This submission appears to be reasonable. The learned Government Pleader submits that the State has no objection if 1.34 acres of land to be offered is un-encumbered and which is in the direct possession of the declarant and it is also included in the ceiling account. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the Taluk Land Board to consider the option of the petitioner to surrender 1.34 acres of land from any other survey number included in the ceiling account of the declarant. The Taluk Land Board, if satisfied that it is an un-encumbered land and that the declarant is in possession of that land and that there is no impediment in taking possession of that land, such option can be accepted. With these observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk