IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 RP.No. 260 of 2007() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRP.884/1999 Dated 09/08/2006 .................... : REVIEW PETITIONERS/REVISION PETITIONERS -------------------------------------------------------- 1. ROSY DAVID,W/O.DAVID KUNNAMPUZHA HOUSE, ROSE VILLA, NARAKKAL. 2. JOSEPH K.DAVID,S/O.DAVID, KUNNAMPUZHA HOUSE,ROSE VILLA,NARAKKAL. 3. AUGUSTINE DAVID,S/O.DAVID, KUNNAMPUZHA HOUSE, ROSE VILLA,NARAKKAL. 4. JOHN DAVID,S/O.DAVID, KUNNAMPUZHA HOUSE, ROSE VILLA,NARAKKAL. 5. AUGUSTY DAVID,S/O.DAVID, KUNNAMPUZHA HOUSE, ROSE VILLA,NARAKKAL. 6. PAULSON DAVID,S/O.DAVID, KUNNAMPUZHA HOUSE, ROSE VILLA,NARAKKAL.. 7. BIJU DAVID,S/O.DAVID, KUNNAMPUZHA HOUSE, ROSE VILLA,NARAKKAL. 8. BINU JOY,D/O.LATE DAVID, KUNNAMPUZHA HOUSE, ROSE VILLA,NARAKKAL. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, KOCHI,REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE TAHSILDAR,KOCHI 3. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY ITS CHIEF SECY. TO GOVERNMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2008 ALONG WITH C.R.P. 884/99, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- R.P. No. 260 of 2007 in C.R.P. No. 884 of 1999 --------------------- Dated this the 3rdday of March, 2008 ORDER IN RP AND REVISED JUDGMENT IN CRP I feel it is only just to write a common order in theses two petitions for the reason that one will have a definite bearing on the other. The civil revision petition is preferred by the legal representatives of one David whereby their application under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act has been dismissed as time barred. A learned Judge of this court, by the judgment dated 9th August, 2006, has concurred with the same and dismissed the civil revision petition. It is the said order that has been sought to be reviewed now. 2. A brief history of the case is necessary for a proper appreciation of the matter. It is the case of the review petitioners that the property was taken on lease by their predecessor David and he obtained the certificate of purchase on 20.12.06 with respect to 2 acres and 17 cents of land in Sy No.791/1 in Njarakkal Village. The order of the Taluk Land Board dated 20.3.99 would reveal that the RP NO. 260/07 2 claim application preferred by David was time barred for the reason that he knew about surrendering of the land as early as in 1981but had taken time till 1993 to file a petition under Section 85(8) and therefore it cannot be entertained. One cannot hold that he was totally negligent for the reason that in the year 1981 itself he has filed a suit OS 448/81 before the Munsiff praying for a declaration that the Taluk Land Board is not entitled to resume the land. It is true that the claim application has been filed only after 12 years. But the fact remains that the predecessor-in-interest of the review petitioners was knocking at the doors of the court for redressal of his grievance. It is a fact that has to be taken note of. Therefore, I feel that interest of justice requires an opportunity to be given. Further I have to hold that he has produced the certificate of purchase obtained in the year 1976. As per the decision of the Apex court in Mathew & Ors. v. Taluk Land Board [1979 KLT 601] a certificate of purchase under Section 72 K of the KLR Act is a conclusive proof of tenancy and unless there are warranting circumstances to show that it is inaccurate on the face of the record, the Taluk Land Board is bound to consider the evidentiary value of the same. But at the same time I want to make it very clear that if the lands had already been taken RP NO. 260/07 3 possession of and distributed, then it may cause lot of difficulties. Therefore, if the lands are only assumed possession but not distributed as per the provisions of the ceiling rules then the Taluk Land Board has to reconsider the case of the review petitioners. Therefore the review petition is allowed and the civil revision petition is disposed of directing the Taluk Land Board to consider the question of the review petitioners afresh in the light of the discussion made above. Both sides are permitted to adduce evidence. I make it clear that if the land had already been assigned by virtue of the provisions of the ceiling rules in favour of third persons, the Taluk Land Board need not reopen the case and proceed further with the matter. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps RP NO. 260/07 4