IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 136 of 2011() --------------------- SMC.18/1976 of TALUK LAND BOARD, CHANGANACHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): CIVIL REVISION PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SEBASTIAN MATHEW, S/O.LATE KURUVILA MATHEW, THOOMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VAZHOOR. ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL FOR R1 SRI.JOSE MATHEW (KAVALAKALAM) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP NO.136/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 14.01.2008 IN CRP NO.850/2001 //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.136 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of December, 2011. ORDER Proceeding of the Taluk Land Board, Changanacherry (for short, the TLB”) dated 27.10.2009 is challenged by the State. 2. Suo motu proceeding was initiated by the TLB against Kuruvilla Mathew under Section 85(7) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short, “the Act”) for surrender of excess land. The TLB accepted explanation of the said Kuruvila Mathew and dropped proceedings. Later, after enactment of Amendment Act 16 of 1989 the case was re-opened in exercise of power under Section 85(9A) of the Act. The assessee was directed to surrender 26 cents by way of excess land. That order was challenged in C.R.P.No.850 of 2001. This Court by order dated 14.01.2008 allowed that civil revision and remitted the matter to the TLB for a fresh decision. The TLB was directed to consider and give opportunity to the assessee to prove the actual extent of land covered by rubber plantation, entitled to exemption as on 01.04.1964, find out whether the assessee entitled to hold ten standard Acres will come above 12 ordinary Acres and below 15 ordinary Acres which he is entitled to hold and consider whether portion of property alleged to be taken for formation of Panchayat road was surrendered prior to 01.04.1964 and if it is so, entitled to be exempted while considering total extent of land which the assessee is entitled to posses. After CRP No.136/2011 2 remand the TLB has passed the impugned order as per which it is held that after deducting 14 Ares (34 cents) of land, total land held by the assessee is 11.92.80 Acres and is within the ceiling limit. According to the TLB family of the assessee consists of himself, wife and minor children (altogether six) which is entitled to hold property upto 15 Acres. 3. It is contended in this revision on behalf of the State that the TLB has gone beyond the scope of remand order in Cr.R.P.No.850 of 2001 and that the TLB has acted on a letter produced by the assessee which did not contain survey number of the rubber plantation. 4. It is pertinent to note that even in the earlier order which was challenged in C.R.P.No.850 of 2001, the TLB found that the assessee is eligible for exemption of 3.58.92 Acres rubber plantation, 40 cents is to be excluded as house site and 14 Ares is to be exempted from consideration of excess land since that portion was surrendered by the assessee even before 01.04.1964 for formation of Panchayat road. Thus the total extent of land liable to be exempted is 4.32.90 Acres out of the total extent of 16.25 Acres. The balance extent is 11.92 Acres. It is on that basis the TLB held that since family of the assessee consists of six members including his wife and minor children, it is entitled to exemption upto 15 Acres. CRP No.136/2011 3 5. It is revealed that so far as rubber plantation is concerned, relevant documents were produced by the assessee to prove that the area sought to be exempted was rubber plantation. 40 cents is exempted as house site and dispute which remains is concerning 14 Ares surrendered by the assessee for formation of Panchayat road prior to 01.04.1964. That fact is proved before the TLB by production of a certificate issued by the Village Officer. Re-survey records also revealed the same. 6. So far as exemption under Sec.82(1) of the Act is concerned, even if it is accepted that family of the assessee does not take in six members including minor children, it is not disputed that family of the assessee consists of minimum of two members in which case the assessee is entitled to the exemption granted by the TLB. In that view of the matter there is no merit in the contention that the order passed is not legal or proper calling for interference in civil revision. Civil revision is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks