IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 CRP.No. 377 of 2010() --------------------- SR.741/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, PERINTALMANNA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. V.P.AYISHAKUTTY UMMA, W/O.V.P.KUNHAHAMMED HAJI, VALIYAPEEDIKAKKAL HOUSE ARAKKUPARAMBA, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. 2. V.P.YOUSUF HAJI, S/O.V.P.KUHAHAMMED HAJI VALIYAPEEDIKAKKAL HOUSE ARAKKUPARAMBA, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. 3. V.P.MUHAMMED ASHRAF, S/O.-DO- -DO- 4. V.P.SULIAKA,D/O. -DO- -DO- 5. V.P.HAFSA, D/O.-DO- -DO- 6. V.P.RAMLATH, D/O. -DO- -DO- 7. V.P.SAFIYA,D/O. -DO- -DO- 8. V.P.KAMMAPPA HAJI (WRONGLY SHOWN AS V.P.KUNHIPPA) S/O.-DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PERINTHALMANNA 2. TAHSILDAR,PERINTHALMANNA 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESETNED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER SHRI M.L.SAJEEVAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.377 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010. ORDER This revision is in challenge of order passed by the Taluk Land Board, Perinthalmanna (for short, “TLB”) on 22.06.2010 re-determine extent of excess land liable to be surrendered by petitioners as 8.65 acres. There was an earlier proceeding against the declarant, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners as per which total excess land liable to be surrendered was fixed as 9.51 acres. Petitioners challenged that order in this Court in C.R.P.No.869 of 2008 and this Court vide order dated 10.03.2010 set aside the order of TLB and remitted the case to TLB to determine ceiling area of the declarant after deducting 86 cents claimed by the son of declarant. 2. Now the only request urged before me by the petitioners is that they may be given opportunity to exercise option under Section 85(6) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short, “the Act”). Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Ramanatha Reddiar v. Taluk Land Board (1985 KLT 412). Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents contends that option was exercised in the earlier proceeding and hence petitioners cannot seek a fresh opportunity to exercise option. CRP No.377/2010 2 3. So far as that contention of learned Special Government Pleader is concerned, I have gone through the order of this Court in C.R.P.No.869 of 2008. It is seen that issue regarding option was not raised or considered by this Court. Instead question considered was whether out of the land declared to be surrendered (9.51 acres) 86 cents is liable to be excluded. The said order does not show that any claim regarding option was raised or considered by this Court. There is no evidence to show that at any prior point of time petitioners had exercised option. 4. Section 85(6) of the Act states TLB has to consider the choice exercised by the declarant. This Court in Ramanatha Reddiar v. Taluk Land Board stated that declarant who did not specifically mention about the option in regard to the identity of land he wanted to surrender could not be heard to say later on that as a matter of right he was entitled to make a choice after the ceiling limit has been fixed though as a matter of equity the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board, as the case may be, might accede to such a request. Hence though not as a matter of right petitioners can be given an opportunity to exercise option in the matter of land to be surrendered (8.65 acres). Having regard to circumstances I find no reason why petitioners should not be given that opportunity. CRP No.377/2010 3 Resultantly this revision petition is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside to the extent that TLB shall give petitioners opportunity to exercise option to indicate the land to be surrendered (8.65 acres). If any such request is made TLB shall consider it and pass appropriate orders as provided under law. I.A.No.1832 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks