IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 609 of 2000(E) ---------------------- SR.683/1977 of TALUK LAND BOARD, PERINTALMANNA .................... PETITIONER: (ASSESSEE): ----------------------------------------- P.MOHAMMED MUSALIYAR, SON OF MOIDEEN MUSALIYAR, P.O. ARAKKUPARAMBA, VIA. PERINTALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SMT.M.R.MINI SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH RESPONDENTS: (TALUK LAND BOARD AND STATE): -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PERINTALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SHYSON P.MANGUZHA THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 4/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.1273/2000 IN C.R.P.NO.609/2000 DISMISSED 4/01/208 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 609 OF 2000 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Taluk Land Board, Perintalmanna in S.R.683/77 dated 8.2.00. It was a case reopened under Section 85(9)A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Originally the Taluk Land Board by its order found that the assessee is not having any excess land and therefore dropped the proceedings. It appears that there was a dispute with respect to the property having an extent of 12.02 acres between assessee and one Alikkal Mohammed. The Land Board reopened the case and held that there is nothing to show that Alikkal Mohammed is having right over 12.02 acres of land. Therefore refixed the ceiling limit and directed the assessee therein to surrender 11.18 acres of land from Sy.No.157/1A of Thazhekode village. 2. As per paragraph 5 of the statement of facts it is seen that the grievance of the revision petitioner is to the CRP 609 OF 2000 -:2:- effect that the Taluk Land Board did not afford an opportunity for the party to produce documents and it also did not act upon its officers report which was filed earlier and that no notice was also issued to this Alikkal Mohammed. A perusal of the order passed by the Taluk Land Board would reveal that it has not considered the matter in the correct perspective. When the Taluk Land Board decided to exclude this 12.02 acres, excluded this in its previous order. When it has to be added there must be materials before the Board to do the same and parties must be given opportunity to adduce evidence. Similarly, if it is found that the previous report of the authorized officer cannot be accepted, it is for the Taluk Land Board to get a fresh report and permit the party to adduce evidence and thereafter dispose of the matter in accordance with law. 3. Similarly, if no notice is given to Alikkal Mohammed it also will cut at the root of the case. Therefore I am convinced that matter has not been properly dealt with by the Taluk Land Board and therefore the order under CRP 609 OF 2000 -:3:- challenge requires interference. 4. In the result the order passed by the Taluk Land Board is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Taluk Land Board for fresh consideration after enabling the parties to produce documents in support of their contentions and in case of necessity to file a fresh authorized officer's report. Needless to say that Alikkal Mohammed also has to be given notice since the property claimed by him also is taken into consideration by the Taluk Land Board. If there are other contentions and any benefits which the parties are entitled to under the Amended Act 21 of 2006, the parties are at liberty to place the same also before the Taluk Land Board. The Taluk Land Board is directed to issue registered notice with acknowledgment due to the parties fixing the hearing date and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- CRP 609 OF 2000 -:4:- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. No. 609 OF 2000 = = = = = = = = = = = O R D E R 4th January, 2008.