IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 366 of 1999(E) ------------------------------ SM.138/1997 of TALUK LAND BOARD, CHITTUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ---------------------------- SMT.N.KRISHNAVENI, W/O. LATE SRI.V.NARAYANASWAMI NAIDU, AVAMASHI ROAD, COIMBATORE 641 018., TAMILNADU. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, CHITTOOR, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. TAHSILDAR, CHITTOOR, . 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALGHAT. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.DILEEP THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07 / 01 /2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP. NO.366/1999 ORDER ON CMP. NO.806/1999 IN CRP. NO. 366/1999 DISMISSED 07/01/2008 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss K.T. SANKARAN, J. ................................................................................... C.R.P. No. 366 OF 1999 ................................................................................... Dated this the 7th January, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the assessee in S.M.No. 138 of 1978 on the file of the Taluk Land Board, Chittur. By the final order dated 08.02.1984, the petitioner was directed to surrender an extent of 7 acres 56 ½ cents . That order was challenged in C.R.P.No.1140 of 1984. The order of the Taluk Land Board was set aside and the matter was remanded. The Taluk Land Board was directed to conduct a survey after notice to the petitioner and to fix the identity of the land to be surrendered. The Taluk Land Board issued directions to the Tahsildar to conduct survey and identify the land in question with the assistance of the survey staff. Survey was conducted. The land was identified in accordance with the survey and survey number of the land was marked as Sy.No. 853(old) and 853/1(new) . No objections were filed by the petitioner against the report submitted by the Tahsildar. Identification of the land was not questioned before the Taluk Land Board. The case was thereafter posted for hearing on several dates. Though a counsel was engaged by the petitioner, the party as well as the counsel were absent before the Taluk Land Board . As no objections were filed to the report submitted by the authorised officer, the Taluk Land Board proceeded on the basis of the report and held that the petitioner is liable to surrender an extent of 7 acres 56 ½ cents . 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Taluk C.R.P. No. 366 OF 1999 2 Land Board does not contain the necessary details as to the title, the extent held by the assessee, the ceiling area applicable to her, exemption granted and the calculation which would show the extent of the land to be surrendered. Such an order was passed by the Taluk Land Board and that order was challenged in C.R.P.No. 1140 of 1984. While disposing of C.R.P. 1140 of 1984, the only direction given is to measure the so called un-surveyed land and fix the identity of the land . Such exercise was done and a report was submitted. There after, in the order passed by the Taluk Land Board, all those details were not reiterated or reproduced It was sufficient if an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to put forward her contentions. The petitioner did not avail that opportunity. After several years, at this distance of time, the contentions put forward by the petitioner cannot be entertained. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the order passed by the Taluk Land Board refers to several dates of postings, there was no sitting and there was no hearing on those dates. I do not think that the contention put forward by the petitioner is correct on the face of the details furnished in the order . 4. After referring to the report submitted by the Tahsildar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is difference in the extent and that the Taluk Land Board failed to take note of the extent of the so called unsurveyed land, the identity of which was subsequently fixed. On going through the report, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner. The report would also indicate that in spite of notice given to the petitioner, she did not co-operate with the Tahsildar for inspection and identification of the land. The report of the Tahsildar would also indicate that the land was not being used at all at any point of time. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to set aside the C.R.P. No. 366 OF 1999 3 order passed by the Taluk Land Board. Though sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner to substantiate her contentions, she did not avail that opportunity. After getting an order for remand in the revision with a specific direction to identify the land, she did not turn up in spite of the notice given by the Tahsildar about the inspection. The report of the Tahsildar would indicate that several officials including the District Collector were present at the time of inspection. But the petitioner was absent all through out. The objections now raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner pointing out certain differences in the extent and other technical contentions, cannot be entertained at this distance of time. I am not inclined to accept any such contention since the petitioner did not raise any objection to the report of the Tahsildar and since the petitioner did not co-operate with the inspection and identification of the land. The petitioner did not co-operate with the Taluk Land Board as well. The order passed by the Taluk Land Board does not suffer from any infirmity . The order passed by the Taluk Land Board can be interfered with in revision under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, only if the Taluk Land Board has either decided erroneously or failed to decide any question of law. No such ingredient is made out by the petitioner. The petitioner having not participated in the enquiry or in any proceedings for identification of the property, she cannot complain that any question of law was decided erroneously or that the Taluk Land Board failed to decide any such question of law. No such error is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner . Except regarding the difference in the extent and except picking holes here and there in the report submitted by the Tahsildar, no ground has been made out by the petitioner warranting interference under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It is relevant in this context to note that the proceedings were initiated in 1978 and even after a lapse of 29 years, finality is not C.R.P. No. 366 OF 1999 4 reached and the excess land is not taken over. The Civil Revision Petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk C.R.P. No. 366 OF 1999 5 K.T. SANKARAN, J. ........................................................ C.R.P.No. 366 OF 1999 ......................................................... Dated this the 7th January, 2008 O R D E R