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. 1387 of 2004 ---------------------- ( SM.219/1976 of TALUK LAND BOARD, MANNARKKAD ) REVN. PETITIONER/ASSESSEE: ----------------------------------------------- DEVAKI K. GUPTAN, AGED 76 YEARS, W/O. LATE KUNJU GUPTAN, ATHIPOTTAKALAM, KUNDURKUNNU, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANA KANNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TALUK LAND BOARD, MANNARKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD. 3. TAHSILDAR, MANNARKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. 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. 3641 OF 2004 IN C.R.P.NO. 1387 OF 2004 DISMISSED. 27.03.2008 SD/- K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. K.T. SANKARAN, J. ........................................................................ C.R.P. No.1387 OF 2004 ......................................................................... Dated this the 27th March, 2008 O R D E R The widow of the assessee is the revision petitioner. As per the final order passed by the Taluk Land Board dated 22.03.1990, the assessee was directed to surrender an extent of 6.75 acres. The petitioner challenged that order in C.R.P.No. 996 of 1990. The Revision was allowed by order dated 01.04.1996 and the order passed by the Taluk Land Board was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Taluk Land Board to consider the only question as to whether 1.98 acres in Sy.No.26/1 is liable to be excluded from the total extent included in the account of the assessee. 2. The contention raised by the petitioner was that 1.98 acres in Sy.No.26/1 did not belong to the assessee and that the property belonged to others as per registered documents. After the remand, the Taluk Land Board considered the documentary evidence and by the order impugned dated 06.06.2001, which is under challenge in the revision, held that the extent of 1.98 acres in Sy.No.26/1 is liable to be deleted from the account of the assessee. Accordingly, the Taluk Land Board held that the excess land to be surrendered by the petitioner would be 4.77 acres instead of 6.75 acres. Meanwhile, the excess land was taken possession of. Therefore the Taluk Land Board directed the Tahsildar, Mannarkkad to restore an extent of 1.98 acres to the petitioner. 3. Since the remand was confined to consider the only question as to whether the extent of 1.98 acres in Sy.No. 26/1 is to be deleted from the account of the assessee, no other contention survives. The contention raised in the C.R.P is that an extent of 4.77 acres in Sy.No.133/3 of Thachanattukara village is a cashew plantation and that a Bill was introduced for exempting the cashew plantation from the purview of C.R.P. No.1387 OF 2004 2 the Kerala Land Reforms Act. However, no such amendment has been introduced in the Kerala Land Reforms Act as of now and cashew plantation is not an exempted category. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act , 2005 (Act 25 of 2006) would enable the petitioner to contend that the eviction proceedings are liable to be stayed . Section 1(3) of the Act 25 of 2006 states that the Act shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 1st April 2004 and shall have effect till the date on which the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005 come into force. The Act 25 of 2006 would have binding effect only till the date of commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment)Act 2005 (Act 21 of 2006) has come into force, whereby Sections 7E and 84(4) were inserted in the Kerala Land Reforms Act. If the petitioner is entitled to get any benefit under the Amendment Act (Act 21 of 2006), she is entitled to put forward the same before the Taluk Land Board by a proper petition under law. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the order passed by the Taluk Land Board is legal and proper and that no interference is called for. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk