IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 CRP.No. 1824 of 1999(E) ----------------------- CC.455/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, OTTAPALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- N.V.MOHAMMED,S/O.MARAKKAR, NAMBIYATH VALLIKKATTUTHODI, KOTTILAKADAVU, POMPRA. P.O., KARAKKURUVI (VIA), MANNARKKAD. (DIED) ADDL.PETITIONERS 2 TO 9: 2.AZYA, W/O.LATE N.V.MOHAMMED, NAMBIYATH VALLIKKATTUTHODI, POMPRAY P.O., KARAKKURUSSI (VIA), MANNARKKAD. 3.SAIDALAVI, S/O.LATE N.V.MOHAMMED, DO. DO. 4.SAINABA, D/O.LATE N.V.MOHAMMED, KUNNATH VEEDU, P.O.KOTTAPPURAM, SREEKRISHNAPURAM. 5.SAKEENA, D/O.LATE N.V.MOHAMMED, KUZHIYIL PEEDIKA VEEDU, P.O.POMPRA, KARAKURUSSI (VIA), MANNARKKAD. 6.SARA, D/O.LATE N.V.MOHAMMED, NALAKATH VEEDU, KOMBAM, MANNARKKAD. 7.SOUDA, D/O.LATE N.V.MOHAMMED, THANKKADAN HOUSE, P.O.ALANALLOOR, MANNARKKAD. CRP.NO.1824/1999 8.UMAIBA, D/O.LATE N.V.MOHAMMED, PARAMBIL PEEDIKA VEEDU, ATTASSERI, SREEKRISHNAPURAM. 9.SHEEJA, D/O.LATE N.V.MOHAMMED, NAMBIYATH VEEDU, PERUMBIDARI, MANNARKKAD. ADDL.PETITIONERS 2 TO 9 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED REVISION PETITION AS PER ORDER DATED 27.1.2009 ON I.A.NO.67/2009. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1.STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2.THE TALUK LAND BOARD, OTTAPPALAM, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3.THE TAHSILDAR, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, OTTAPPALAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON 30/03/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.3829/1999 IN C.R.P.NO.1824/1999 DISMISSED. 30.3.2011 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.1824 OF 1999 (E) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011 O R D E R The above revision has been filed under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, for short the 'Act', against the order dated 28.7.1999 in C.C.No.455/73 of the Taluk Land Board, Ottappalam, directing surrender of 13.26 acres of land as excess land in the ceiling proceedings, taken against one Vallikkattuthodi Marakkar, the predecessor of the revision petitioner. Pending the present revision, the revision petitioner had also passed away and his wife and children have been substituted as additional petitioners 2 to 9 as his legal heirs. 2. The declarant, namely, Vallikkattuthodi Marakkar, the predecessor of the revision petitioner, had filed a statement under Section 85 of the Act in respect of the lands held by him and his statutory family. Initially, after getting a report and conducting enquiries through the revenue authorities, as the C.R.P.NO.1824/1999 2 statutory family of the declarant was found not possessed of any excess land, the proceedings were dropped, but, with the reservation that it is liable to be re-opened in the event of the declarant obtaining any land in two suits, which were then pending before the civil court. Thereafter, one Murichira Kunhumuhammed filed a complaint that after the death of the declarant, his son (the present revision petitioner) along with his mother had disposed of several items of properties by registered deeds and the declarant had in his possession about 55 acres of land. He also furnished details of the deeds executed by the declarant's son with his mother. Enquiry on the basis of such complaint was conducted through the Special Deputy Tahsildar and it revealed that the declarant, on 1.1.1970, had in his possession 23 acres and 16 cents and that he had disposed of three items of properties having a total extent of 6.90 acres after 15.9.1963. On that basis, after giving credit to the land that can be possessed by the declarant and the statutory family, with the exemption granted in respect of 80 cents under the previous order of the Board, it was reported that the declarant had an excess area of 14 acres 26 cents to be surrendered to the C.R.P.NO.1824/1999 3 Government. The declarant had passed away on 26.8.1978, and his wife, a few years later in 1986. The Taluk Land Board re-opening the ceiling proceedings, issued notice to the son of the declarant, the present revision petitioner, and furnishing him the draft statement invited objections, if any, over the land determined as excess land to be surrendered. The revision petitioner, declarant's son and legal heir, filed objections pointing out that many of the items referred to in the statement are in the possession of third parties even while the declarant was alive and that he had disposed of only 11.18 acres of land. In respect of some of the items covered by the draft statement, it was also contended that the declarant was never in possession of those properties. Such objections were enquired into through the authorised revenue officer and a report was filed before the Board. On the materials so placed, the Taluk land Board found that the declarant was in possession of 29.06 acres as on 1.1.1970, and after excluding the land which could be possessed by his statutory family, namely, 15 acres, with the exemption granted over 80 cents of land under Section 81 of the Act, the excess area to be surrendered was determined as 13.26 acres. C.R.P.NO.1824/1999 4 Though opportunities were extended to the revision petitioner to file option statement identifying the excess land to be surrendered, no such statement was filed, and thereupon, the order impugned in the revision was passed directing surrender of 13.26 acres of land as specified in the order of the Board. 3. Challenge raised in the revision is basically centered over some of the items of properties included as possessed by the declarant and determined as excess land to be surrendered in the case. Third parties are in possession of some of the items which are shown as that of the declarant and those persons are eligible and entitled to the benefit covered by Section 7E of the Act, which have been brought in by amendment under Act 21 of 2006, and the excess area under the ceiling proceedings had been determined without giving notice to those third parties, are the challenges raised at the time of hearing, to impeach the propriety and correctness of the order passed by the Taluk land Board determining the excess area to be surrendered by the declarant. Inviting attention to how the objections raised to the report of the enquiry officer had been dealt with by the Board, C.R.P.NO.1824/1999 5 which are discussed under paragraph No.4 in the impugned order, it was urged by the learned counsel that the objections canvassed had not been properly looked into nor considered following the procedure required when third parties are shown to be in physical possession of the properties which are alleged to be possessed by the declarant. Adverting to how the objections to the property comprising in Sy.No.15/1 had been dealt with, as under (5) in paragraph No.4, it was contended by the counsel that the Board had taken a view that a fresh report could be called for to determine the extent of land possessed by the declarant in that survey number, and then, if excess area was found in the possession of the declarant than what had been determined at present, it would take further steps in the matter. View so taken by the Board was irregular and improper as the determination of the land in the survey number possessed by the declarant was bound to be decided in the present proceedings itself, is the submission of the counsel. 4. Perusing the records of the case, I find that the enquiry officer had issued notice to the third parties, who were found to C.R.P.NO.1824/1999 6 be in physical possession of the properties which, under registered documents, were shown to be owned and possessed by the declarant as and when the Act came into force. None of the third parties could produce any document to show their entitlement to the lands covered by the draft statement issued to the declarant and the enquiry officer has concluded that the land as on the relevant date was possessed by the declarant. There is no merit in the submission made that notices were not given to the third parties, who were found in possession of some of the items of properties as the records received would show otherwise. Then, as regards the claim of the third parties under Section 7E of the Act brought in by way of amendment under Act 21 of 2006, it is for those third parties, if they are entitled, to canvass the benefit thereof and it cannot be taken advantage by the declarant in the matter of determining the land possessed by him for fixing the excess area, if any, to be surrendered, in the ceiling proceedings. So far as the report filed by the enquiry officer, it is seen, other than contending that the revision petitioner, the legal heir of the declarant, is not presently in possession of some of the lands under the draft statement and C.R.P.NO.1824/1999 7 such lands are in possession of the third parties, and that he had gifted certain items to his daughters, nothing more has been stated to indicate that there was any challenge that the declarant was not in possession of the properties covered by the above statement on the relevant date applicable for fixing the excess land. Subsequently, third parties have come into possession, or transfers have been effected by the declarant or his successors in favour of such parties, by themselves, are not relevant in the determination of excess land to be surrendered by the declarant. Similarly with respect to the property covered by Sy.No.15/1 in the draft statement, which is dealt with by the Board in its order under serial.No.5 in paragraph 4, the challenge canvassed that there was non-application of mind, irregularity and impropriety, I do not find any merit at all. After considering the objections, 1.19 acres of land out of the 1.62 acres shown in the draft statement as possessed by the declarant was excluded, and excess land as belonging to the declarant in that survey number was fixed as 43 cents. If, later, for any reason, it is shown that the declarant was found to be possessed of more area in the survey number, then appropriate proceedings can be initiated C.R.P.NO.1824/1999 8 against him, was the view expressed by the Board. It does not, in any way, indicate non-application of mind, but to the contrary, the exemption provided taking into account that 1 acre 19 cents in the survey number had been obtained by the revision petitioner, declarant's son, under a deed of 366/62, such area was excluded from the 1 acre 62 cents shown in the draft statement as belonging to the declarant and shown in the draft statement. There is no infirmity, leave alone, any impropriety in the view so expressed by the Board, by which, it had only exempted certain land from the area shown in the draft statement as belonging to the declarant. At any rate, the revision petitioner did not produce any material to show that over the 43 cents also in that survey number, he had any title to get it excluded as not belonging to the declarant. 5. Submissions made and also the challenges canvassed, as indicated earlier, were more particularly based on the claim of third parties, who are in possession of the land determined as excess area to be surrendered contending that such third parties have the status of deemed tenants as envisaged under Section C.R.P.NO.1824/1999 9 7E of the Act. I find the right of the third parties in possession is not a matter of concern for the revision petitioner, the son of the declarant; and, the impugned order passed by the Board determining the excess land of the declarant will no way affect the right of such parties if they are otherwise entitled to the benefit covered by Section 7E of the Act. The revision petitioner has not filed an option statement despite being provided with opportunities is also indicative that with respect to the land determined as excess land to be surrendered, no modification was needed. If any such land is in the possession of third parties, and in case, they are entitled to Section 7E of the Act, it is open to them to approach the concerned Tribunal and establish their status as deemed tenants. 6. The revision as against the order of the Board in determining the excess land to be surrendered by the declarant has to be examined within the narrow scope and limitation covered by Section 103 of the Act. The interdiction placed under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court would indicate that this Court will be justified in interfering with the order of the Taluk C.R.P.NO.1824/1999 10 Land Board only where it has decided erroneously, or failed to decide, any question of law involved in its proceedings. No ground has been made out to show that there was failure to consider any question of law or erroneous decision thereof for invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Finding entered by the Board in determining the excess land to be surrendered by the declarant, is essentially a finding of fact based on the materials produced, which included the report of the enquiry officer collected after giving notice and hearing third parties, who are stated to be in possession of the land, which had been included in the draft statement issued to the declarant as belonging to him. Third parties are in possession of some of the lands, the challenge canvassed by the declarant's son, the revision petitioner, that alone, without establishing their entitlement thereto over the properties included in the draft statement on the relevant date for fixation of the ceiling limit as belonging to the declarant, cannot have any bearing in the determining of the excess land to be surrendered by the declarant. There is no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the Taluk Land Board in determining the excess land C.R.P.NO.1824/1999 11 to be surrendered by the declarant. The revision is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.1824 OF 1999 (E) ----------------------------------- O R D E R 30th day of March, 2011 C.R.P.NO.1824/1999 13