IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 14309 of 2006(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SARADSHA DEVI, THOTTATHIL PUTHENMADOM, KULANADA. BY ADV. DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY SRI.T.P.DEYANANTHAN SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMATHITTA. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, TALUK LAND BOARD, KOZHENCHERRY, DEPUTY COLLECTOR TO L.R (EX-OFFICIO) PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, KULANADA VILLAGE OFFICE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1TO5 SRI SHYSON P. MANGUZHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON 05/02/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.14309/2006 ORDER ON I.A.NO.16633/2007 IN WP.(C).NO.14309/2007 --------------- DISMISSED 5/2/2009 Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DTD. 2/6/2003 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 09/11/2004. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 14/3/2005. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.3403/99/GE DTD. 20/7/99. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 5/5/2005. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.178/2/G.EDN. DTD. 28/6/2002. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 15/6/2005. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P).NO.403/02/G.EDN.DTD. 4/12/2002. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 23/9/1983 EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 5/8/91. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.74101/J2/2004/G.EDN. DTD. 24/1/2005. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD.1/2/2006. EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 18/6/2005. EXT.P13A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 5/9/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER NO.2 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20/10/2006. EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 24/9/2007 IN WP(C).NO.30685/2006. EXTP16 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT).NO.39020/07/G.EDN. DTD. 20/8/2007. HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. --------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.14309 OF 2006 ---------------------------- DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by Mrs. Sarada Devi claiming to be as the wife of the declarant, praying for a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider her claim and review the earlier order passed without hearing her and also for a direction to consider Ext.P3 petition and for other consequential reliefs. 2. The petitioner submitted Ext.P8 petition before the Land Board, Kerala, Trivandrum. It is stated in Ext.P8 that her name and the names of her minor children Arya Devi and Suresh are not included in the ceiling case, even though they are also members of the statutory family. According to the petitioner, on a proper verification of the properties included in the ceiling case and as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, her statutory family is entitled to retain 20 ordinary acres. Several other reasons are also stated in Ext.P8. Therefore, the petitioner -2- W.P.(C).No.14309/2006 requested the Land Board, Trivandrum to impart necessary instructions to the Taluk Land Board, Chengannur to issue a draft statement, to give her an opportunity to file objections and to hear and dispose of the ceiling case on merits. Ext.P8 is filed on 25/11/1981. Almost 28 years have passed after filing the petition. Ext.P3 dated 30/5/1995 is the another petition filed by the same petitioner before the Taluk Land Board, more or less stating the same reasons. It is seen that both the petitions are not prosecuted, till the filing of this writ petition. No follow up action was taken for ventilating the grievance of the petitioner. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is inter alia contended that the ceiling case originated in 1973 and that the Taluk Land Board, Chengannur by order dated 21/3/1979 decided the ceiling case against the declarant, Sri Narayanaru Narayanaru. The matter was further agitated before this Court on several occasions by the son of the declarant. From the counter affidavit it is revealed that C.R.P.No.428/82 was -3- W.P.(C).No.14309/2006 filed by the petitioner and her husband Narayanaru Narayanaru jointly. That CRP was dismissed. Later a Special Leave Petition was filed by Sarada Devi, the petitioner herein, before the Apex Court. That also ended in dismissal. 4. An extent of 987.650 acres was declared as excess land. The Tahsildar had taken possession of 3.90 acres of land and the balance is, it is stated, in the possession of strangers. The strangers have approached this Court against taking possession of the land. It is also stated that the petitioner had approached this Court and her contentions were rejected by this Court. It is further stated that she is one of the petitioners in CRP.No.428/82. It is also seen that the son of the petitioner Sri Narayan Potti continued the litigation by filing CRP.No.808/2000 and O.P.No.14670/95. This Court while disposing of O.P.No.14670/95 directed the petitioner therein to seek remedy under section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Consequently, the application filed by Sri Narayan Potti was -4- W.P.(C).No.14309/2006 decided by the Land Board on 20/1/2000. It is seen from the records that the Taluk Land Board had occasion to hear almost all members of the family including the petitioner. Though Ext.P8 petition was filed in the year 1981, it was not prosecuted till the filing of the writ petition. The same cannot be allowed at this distance of time; whatever it be is the grounds urged in the said petition. The case was decided on merits and the findings of the Taluk Land Board was confirmed by this Court in CRP.No.428/82 and other connected cases. So also Ext.P3 petition was not prosecuted and no reasons are stated even in this writ petition for not prosecuting Ext.P3 and P8, as the case may be. Moreover the matter was considered in detail, after hearing some of the family members including the declarant and the petitioner's son. I find no reason to issue any direction on the basis of the submissions and pleadings in the writ petition. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However the dismissal of this writ petition is not a bar -5- W.P.(C).No.14309/2006 for the minor sons and daughters, who were not included in the ceiling case, for establishing their right, if any available in a petition filed under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.