IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 CRP.No. 13 of 2010() -------------------- ORDER IN SMP.130/1976 of TALUK LAND BOARD, PERINTALMANNA .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/LEGAL HEIRS OF ASSESSEE -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SRI.PATTUKALATHIL ABOOBACKER HAJI, KIZHAKKUMPADAM, MELATTUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SMT.PATTUKALATHIL SAINABA, KIZHAKKUMPADAM, MELATTUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. SRI.PATTUKALATHIL MOHAMMED, KIZHAKKUMPADAM, MELATTUR. 4. SMT.PATTUKALATHIL KUNHEERUMMA, KIZHAKKUMPADAM, MELATTUR. 5. PELEMPADYAN AMINA, W/O.LATE HYDRU HAJI,PATTUKALATHIL, EDAPPATTA VILLAGE. 6. PATTUKALATHIL MOHAMMED, S/O.LATE HYDRU HAJI,PATTUKALATHIL, EDAPPATTA VILLAGE. 7. PATTUKALATHL FATHIMA, D/O.LATE HYDRU HAJI,PATTUKALATHIL, EDAPPATTA VILLAGE. 8. SRI.PATTUKALATHIL SAIDALAVI, S/O.LATE HYDRU HAJI,PATTUKALATHIL, EDAPPATTA VILLAGE. 9. SRI.PATTUKALATHIL HAMZA, S/O.LATE HYDRU HAJI,PATTUKALATHIL, EDAPPATTA VILLAGE. 10. SRI.PATTUKALATHIL POKKER ALIAS KUNHAPPA, S/O.LATE HYDRU HAJI,PATTUKALATHIL, EDAPPATTA VILLAGE. 11. SMT.PATTUKALATHIL SULAKHA, D/O.LATE HYDRU HAJI,PATTUKALATHIL, EDAPPATTA VILLAGE. CRP 13/2010 12. SMT.PATTUKALATHIL MARIYA, W/O.KALATHUMPADYAN UMMER,VENGOOR,MELATTUR VILLAGE. 13. SMT.PATTUKALATHIL SUBAIDA, W/O.PATTANATE KADER, KURAPARAMBA, PANDIKKAD. 14. SMT.KHADEEJA, W/O.AMBALATHODY UMMER, MELATTUR. 15. SMT.RAMLATH PATTUKALATHIL, W/O.MOHAMMEDALI, KAPPIL, IRUNGATH, KARUVARAKUNDU VILLAGE. 16. SMT.ZEENATH PATTUKALATHIL, W/O.PARAMBUR ASSAINAR, THACHINGANADE, MELATTUR VILLAGE. 17. SMT.ANKAPPALLI MARIYA, W/O.PATTUKALATHIL KUNHAHAMMED, MELATTUR. 18. SRI.SHOWKKATHALI, PATTUKALATHIL, MELATTUR. 19. SRI.ABDUL RAHEEM, S/O.PATTUKALATHIL KUNHAHAMMED, MELATTUR. 20. SRI.YASAR ARATATH, S/O.PATTUKALATHIL KUNHAHAMMED, MELATTUR. 21. SMT.NASEERA, D/O.PATTUKALATHIL KUNHAHAMMED, MELATTUR. 22. SRI.MOHAMMED ASHARAF, S/O.PATTUKALATHIL KUNHAHAMMED, MELATTUR. 23. SMT.NASEEMA, D/O.PATTUKALATHIL KUNHAHAMMED, MELATTUR. 24. PATTUKALATHIL IBRAHIM, S/O.KUNHALAVI HAJI, MELATTUR. 25. PATTUKALATHIL KHALID, S/O.KUNHALAVI HAJI, MELATTUR. BY ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY SRI.C.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, TALUK LAND BOARD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. CRP 13/2010 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SMT.SAJITHA, W/O.ANENGADAN ABOO, VENGOOR, MELATTUR VILLAGE. R1-R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.M.L.SAJEEVAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.13 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 14th January, 2010 ORDER Revision petitioners are the legal heirs of the assessee, namely, Sri.Pattukalathil Kunhalavi Haji, in SMP No.130/1976 of the Taluk Land Board, Perinthalmanna. The Taluk Land Board in the above proceedings by order dated 17.4.1978 had fixed the excess land of the assessee directing him to surrender 53.85 acres as excess land. That order was set aside in revision by this court. Pursuant thereto, a revised order was passed directing the assessee to surrender 15.36 acres of land as excess land. That revised order was also challenged as under C.R.P.No.2344 of 1991 which was heard and disposed along with another revision C.R.P.No.130 of 1992. Revisions were disposed setting aside the order of the Land Board and remitting the case for fresh consideration with specific directions to consider the report of the authorised officer. Pursuant thereto, the present orders have been issued by the Land Board directing the assessee to surrender 7.75 ½ acres of land as excess land. That order is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and CRP No.13/2010 - 2 - also the Government Pleader. The main thrust of challenge canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the legal heirs of the assessee have transferred under various registered documents the properties to several third parties for valid consideration and such land covered by the documents have to be excluded in fixing the excess land. Though documentary materials thereof have been produced before the Land Board contending that the assignees under those documents are entitled to the benefit under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, it was improperly rejected by the Land Board, according to the counsel. Reference is also made to sub rule (4) of Section 84 of the Land Reforms Act, and the provisos thereunder, to contend that the transfers made by the legal heirs of the assessee under registered documents have to be taken into account by the Taluk Land Board in excluding the lands covered by those documents in fixing the excess land to be surrendered by the assessee. Alternatively, it was contended that the legal heirs should be granted an opportunity to exercise a fresh option for surrender from the properties which are jointly possessed by them since after commencement of the proceedings most of the items have been divided with the sharers putting up constructions and making CRP No.13/2010 - 3 - improvements in such portions of land under their exclusive possession. Perusing the impugned order of the Land Board with reference to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, I find that the challenges mooted to assail the order of the Land Board by the legal heirs of the declarant cannot be accepted under law. The legal heirs have effected transfer of the properties of the assessee to the third parties is not a ground enabling them to impeach the correctness of the fixation of the excess land to be surrendered by the assessee. Section 84(4) and Section 7E of the Land Reforms Act carve out an exemption in the case of the transferees who are in possession of the land from any person holding land in excess of the ceiling area subject to the conditions stipulated in Section 7E treating such person as a deemed tenant. That cannot be canvassed by the declarant as a ground that the persons to whom the transfers have been effected by him should be treated as 'deemed tenants' for the sole reason transfers have been effected over portions of the land which are determined as excess land to be surrendered. Similarly, the plea now canvassed for a fresh option to surrender from the joint properties of the sharers with respect to the excess land determined cannot also be considered CRP No.13/2010 - 4 - by this court while examining the merit of the orders of the Land Board in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act. This court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction can interfere with the orders of the Land Board only on a question of law, if the Taluk Land Board under the impugned order had either decided erroneously or failed to decide any such question of law. No such case has been canvassed or made out by the revision petitioners in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this court under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act to interfere with the order passed by the Land Board. So much so, I find the revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE