IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 CRP.No. 1907 of 2001() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN TLB.(Q) IN TLB.4/1996 of TALUK LAND BOARD, QUILANDY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/ASSESSEE: --------------------- PUTHALATH BEEVI AMMA, D/O.AMMAD HAJI, AGED 72 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, VILAYATTUR AMSOM, ELAMBILAD DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1.THE CHAIRMAN, TALUK LAND BOARD, KOYLANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2.STATE OF KERALA WITH ADDRESS FOR SERVICE: THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON 15/07/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.1907 OF 2001 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010 O R D E R The revision is directed against the order passed by the Taluk Land Board, Quilandy in a proceeding under Section 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, for short, the 'Act'. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are thus: The Taluk Land Board, Quilandy had initiated ceiling proceedings as TLB(Q)-102/78 against the husband of the revision petitioner, namely, Puthalath Kunhammad. Such proceedings, after due enquiry, was closed entering a finding that Kunhammad and family consisting of seven members held 17.083/4 ordinary acres equivalent to 11.533/4 standard acres, less than their entitlement to hold 12 standard acres. Later, on detection that under a gift deed dated 2.12.1972 a subsequent acquisition of property was made by the assessee proceeding C.R.P.1907/01 2 under Section 87 of the Act was initiated and notices were served on the petitioners, widow and the children of the assessee. A joint statement was filed in response to the notice, in which, among other contentions, it was contended that out of the acquisition of 701/4 cents in the gift deed of 1972, 361/4 cents, equivalent to 0.12 standard acre, comprised in R.S.11/1, 2, 8/6 and 22/8 is a single crop wet land. It was further contended that 181/2 cents in R.S.30/11 and 12, which was also included in the notice issued as further acquisition, was never acquired under the gift deed. The acquisition covered by the gift deed, it was contended, was only 34 cents of garden land, equivalent to 0.34 standard acre, and 361/4 single crop wet land, equivalent to 0.12 standard acre, and both together, having only 0.46 standard acre, added with the land determined in the previous ceiling proceedings of the assessee was less than 12 standard acres, for which, the family was entitled to. The Taluk Land Board accepted the contention that 181/2 cents in R.S.30/11 and 12 was not acquired under the gift deed as alleged in the notice issued and it was dropped. However, the contention raised that 361/4 C.R.P.1907/01 3 cents out of 701/4 cents was a single crop wet land was negatived since the report of the authorised officer showed it as having coconut trees aged 20 years. Repelling the claim of the assessee to treat it as a single crop wet land, the assessment of the holding was made with reference to the earlier order that the family held 11.533/4 standard acres before the acquisition covered by the gift deed. The Taluk Land Board thereupon came to the conclusion that the assessee possessed an extent of 18.331/2 acres equivalent to 12.231/2 standard acres after excluding an extent of 0.541/2 acres under the exempted category. Since the entitlement of the family of the assessee consisting of 7 members was only 12 standard acres, the extent of land in excess of that, 0.231/2 standard acres was directed to be surrendered as surplus land. That order of the Taluk Land Board is challenged in the revision under Section 103 of the Act. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Govt.Pleader. Inviting my attention to the report of the authorised officer, Special Deputy Tahsildar, who conducted inspection over the property covered by the acquisition of the C.R.P.1907/01 4 assessee, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that 361/4 cents in such property even as per the village records on the date of acquisition was a single crop wet land. The age of the coconut trees in such property was in the range of 10 to 20 years. The authorised officer has reported that as on 1.1.1970, the above land 361/4 cents was a single crop paddy land. That being so, it is submitted by the counsel that fixation of the standard acres in such property reckoned with reference to Part II of Schedule II of the Act substantiated the objection raised by the assessee that such land constituted only 0.12 standard acres, for the purpose of determining the surplus land under the Act. Perusing the report of the authorised officer, Special Deputy Tahsildar, I find, there is much force in the submission made by the counsel. The document under which the acquisition was made after 1.1.1970, the village records and even the report of the authorised officer are in support of the objection raised by the assessee that 361/4 cents out of the acquisition made is a single crop paddy land. Subsequent conversion of the wet land into a coconut garden cannot be given any significance in examining the question of surplus land by C.R.P.1907/01 5 way of the acquisition made after 1.1.1970. The date of acquisition of such land is material and not its conversion later to a different category of land. The learned Govt.Pleader had also submitted that the determination of the surplus land in a proceeding under Section 87 of the Act should be on the basis of the category of the land as it was on the date of acquisition, and it cannot be based on the nature of conversion of such land after the acquisition. As the report of the authorised officer clearly demonstrate that 361/4 cents of land covered by the acquisition under the gift deed as on the date of acquisition was a single crop wet paddy land the conclusion drawn by the Taluk land board solely on the basis of the conversion of such land into a garden land later so as to treat such land as coconut garden in fixing surplus land cannot be sustained. Reckoning with reference to Part II of Schedule II of the Act, it is seen, the extent of 361/4 cents of single crop paddy land is equivalent to 0.12 standard acre, and that being added to the land previously held by the assessee as determined under the ceiling proceedings earlier (11.533/4 standard acres) total extent of the property held by the assessee's family, consisting of seven C.R.P.1907/01 6 members, is only 11.991/4 standard acres, less than 12 standard acres as provided under Section 82 (1) (c) of the Act. Challenge against the Taluk Land Board, therefore, succeeds, and the impugned order of the Taluk Land board directing surrender of surplus 0.231/2 cents of land from the assessee is set aside. Revision is allowed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.1907 OF 2001 () ----------------------------------- O R D E R 15th day of July, 2010 C.R.P.1907/01 8