IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2010 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 CRP.No. 574 of 2010() --------------------- CR.785/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, ERNAD .................... PETITIONERS: ------------------ 1. CHENAPARAMBATH RAMLATH, W/O. CHAKKALAPARAMBAN MOIDEE, AGED 30 YEARS, CHEAKODU AMSOM DESOM OF ERNAD TALUK CHEAKODU(PO) MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673645. 2. CHAKKALAPARAMBAN MOIDEEN, S/O. MOHAMMED, AGED 40 YEARS, CHEAKODU(PO), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673645. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, ERNAD TALUK, MANJERI (PO), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676121. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER: ADV. SRI. B JAYASURYA THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2010, ALONG WITH CRP NO.576, 577, 579 AND 640 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.Nos.574, 576, 577, 579 and 640 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 03rd day of December, 2010 ORDER Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents in all the cases. 2. These revision petitions arise from the common order passed by the Taluk Land Board, Ernad (for short, "the TLB”) on 03-09-2010 rejecting claim petitions preferred by petitioners under Sec.85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. C.R.P.No.574 of 2010 relates to the claim made by claimant No.6 while C.R.P.No.576 of 2010 relates to the claim of claimant No.9. C.R.P.No.577 of 2010 is in relation to the claim made by claimant No.1. C.R.P.No.579 of 2010 is concerning claim made by claimant No.5. That claim was concerning 2.54 acres but the TLB decided to delete only 1.56 acres in R.S.No.140/1-1 of Cheakodu Village from the account of declarant. C.R.P.No.640 of 2010 concerns the claim made by claimant No.8 while the claims made by claimants other than in C.R.P.No.640 of 2010 were rejected without referring to the relevant documents produced and without any proper discussion as to why it is rejected, claim made by petitioner in C.R.P.No.640 of 2010 was rejected for non C.R.P.Nos.574, 576, 577, 579 and 640 of 2010 : 2 : production of the relevant documents from the Land Tribunal. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that order of the TLB cannot stand since the findings are entered without proper reasoning. Learned counsel for petitioner in C.R.P.No.579 of 2010 contended that claim over the entire 2.54 acres should have allowed rather than claim being limited to 1.56 acres. Learned counsel for petitioner in C.R.P.No.640 of 2010 contended that petitioner was not able to produce relevant documents from the Land Tribunal, Manjeri in S.M.No.363 of 1992 since the Land Tribunal was not able to trace out records relating to the purchase certificate issued in favour of predecessor-in-interest of petitioner. Learned counsel requested that the matter may be remitted to the TLB for fresh decision after giving parties opportunity to adduce proper evidence. I have heard learned Government Pleader also in the matter. 3. As I stated, claims in C.R.P.Nos.574, 576 and 577 of 2010 have been rejected in toto. It is seen from the order under challenge that the TLB simply stated that documents produced are not sufficient enough to establish the claim made by the respective claimants and hence the applications are rejected. I have not been able to find reason for not accepting the C.R.P.Nos.574, 576, 577, 579 and 640 of 2010 : 3 : documents and why the TLB thought that the said documents are not sufficient enough. The TLB shall peruse the materials produced by petitioners and give cogent reasons why the said documents are either not acceptable or not sufficient to uphold the claim made by petitioners. 4. So far as C.R.P.No.579 of 2010 is concerned, it is seen that while the claim was in respect of 2.54 acres the TLB decided to delete 1.56 acres in R.S.No.140/1-1 of Cheakodu Village from the account of declarant. There also, it is not stated why the rest of the claim was rejected. 5. What remains is the claim made by petitioner in C.R.P.No.640 of 2010. The TLB observed that petitioner purchased the land from one Veerankutty as per document No.577 of 2005 of SRO, Vazhakkad. That document stated that Veerankutty had obtained Jenm assignment from the Land Tribunal, Manjeri in S.M.363 of 1992 but no evidence was produced in regard to that and hence the claim was rejected. Learned counsel submits that petitioner was not given sufficient time to produce evidence in support of the claim. Notice was issued by the TLB to the petitioner on 03-08-2010 for producing relevant documents on 17-08-2010. There was no sitting on that C.R.P.Nos.574, 576, 577, 579 and 640 of 2010 : 4 : day and hence the case was posted on 31-08-2010. That day petitioner sought time to produce the relevant documents including the purchase certificate since the relevant documents were reported to be missing from the Land Tribunal but the TLB rejected the request on 03-09-2010 and proceeded to reject his claim. It is seen from Annexure-A6 produced by petitioner along with C.R.P.No.640 of 2010 that on 11-10-2010 the Land Tribunal, Manjeri has informed petitioner that the file concerning S.M.No.363 of 1992 (in which predecessor-in-interest of petitioner got assignment of jenm rights) could not be traced and that as and when the file is traced copies of documents applied for will be issued. Certainly, the TLB should have granted some time to the petitioner to produce proper evidence. In these circumstances order passed by the TLB on 03-09-2010 in C.R. 785/73/M4 to the extent it affected these petitioners cannot be sustained. But I make it clear that I am not interfering with the order passed in favour of petitioner/claimant in C.R.P.No.579 of 2010 to the extent it concerned 1.56 acres in R.S.140/1-1 of Cheakkodu Village and that interference in that case is only regarding rejection of rest of the claim of petitioners. \ C.R.P.Nos.574, 576, 577, 579 and 640 of 2010 : 5 : Resultantly these revision petitions are allowed in the following lines: (i) C.R.P.Nos.574, 576, 577 and 640 of 2010 are allowed and the impugned order to the extent it concerned petitioners is set aside. The claim of petitioners is remitted to the TLB for fresh decision after giving parties sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence. The TLB shall consider the materials produced by petitioners and pass a speaking order on the claims made by them. (ii) C.R.P.No.579 of 2010 is allowed and order of the TLB rejecting the claim of petitioner except in respect of 1.56 acres of land in R.S.No.140/1-1 of Cheakkodu Village from the account of declarant is set aside and the claim is remitted to the TLB for fresh decision as to the extent other than the said 1.56 acres. Petitioner shall be given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence, on his side. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-