IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 1143 of 2003 ---------------------- ( ORDER DATED 25.03.2003 IN CR.28/1973 /M5 of TALUK LAND BOARD, ERNAD) REVN. PETITIONER/CLAIMANT: ----------------------------------------------- NADA, D/O. MOHAMMED MOHIYUDDIN MALAIBAREE, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, T.P.M.ALIMA KUNHIBEEVI, D/O. SAYID UMMER HAJI THANGAL, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, ERNAD. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, ERNAD. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI S. DILEEP. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP.No. 1143 of 2003 ORDER ON I.A.NO. 20 OF 2003 IN C.R.P.NO. 1143 OF 2003 DISMISSED. 02.01.2008 SD/- K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. K.T. SANKARAN, J. ................................................................................... C.R.P. No. 1143 OF 2003 ................................................................................... Dated this the 2nd January, 2008 O R D E R The ceiling case relates to the year 1973. I thought of disposing of the Civil Revision Petition on the merits, one way or other, without remitting the matter to the Taluk Land Board. But on perusal of the report of the Special Deputy Tahsildar and the order passed by the Taluk Land Board , I have no other option, but to remit the case to the Taluk Land Board. 2. The ceiling case relates to the excess land held by K. Kumaran Nair, Karumathil Kakkuzhiyil. As per the order dated 22.11.1974, Kumaran Nair was directed to surrender an extent of 15.84 acres . An extent of 3.60 acres was taken possession of. It is stated in the order impugned in this Revision (dated 25.03.2003) that the land in R.S. 221/Pt. and 311/1A could not be taken possession of due to civil litigation. It is also stated in the order that as per the proceedings dated 18.11.1997, an extent of 3.597 acres was deleted from the account of the declarant . Originally, the extent of land directed to be surrendered from R.S. 221/Pt was 9.75 acres. Later, an extent of 1.24 acres in R.S. 221/Pt. was deleted from the account of the declarant. 3. The petitioner filed an application dated 28.11.2000 (presumably under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act ) before the Taluk Land Board claiming title and possession over an extent of 3.40 acres in R.S. 221/Pt of Karuvambram amsom . According to her, the land belonged in jenmam to Karikkad Devaswom . One Poozhikuth Athankutty Haji was holding the land on lease as per a registered 'Patta Cheet' dated 25th Meenam 1074 M.E. In 1975, as per document No.1818/75, the C.R.P. No. 1143 OF 2003 2 property was purchased by Ayissa and Abdulla. Before 1975, it is stated, there were several transactions in respect of the property. In 1978, Abdulla assigned his right to Ayissa . In 1980, as per registered document No. 3693/80, Ayissa sold the property to the claim petitioner(revision petitioner). It is stated by the revision petitioner/claimant that the extent of 3.40 acres belonged to him and that the declarant has no right, title or interest over the land. The inclusion of this extent of land in the account of the declarant was objected to and it was contended that the extent of 3.40 acres cannot be taken possession of as excess land liable to be surrendered by Kumaran Nair. 4. The revision petitioner filed Original Petition No. 16165 of 2002 for a direction to the Taluk Land Board to dispose of the claim petition filed by him. As per judgment dated 18th June 2002, the Taluk Land Board was directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 marked in the Original Petition, the same being the petition dated 28.11.2000 filed by the revision petitioner. 5. The Taluk Land Board, by the order impugned, rejected the claim petition filed by the revision petitioner. After narrating the facts, the Taluk Land Board quoted a portion of the report dated 24.07.2001 filed by the authorised officer, wherein he had stated that the claimant did not produce the revenue receipts or original documents. The revenue receipts were subsequently produced before the Taluk Land Board. Those receipts are; receipt dated 20.05.1986 for the period from 1983-84 to 1985-86 and another receipt dated 20.05.1986 for the period 1986-87. The Taluk Land Board stated that the petitioner has not offered any satisfactory explanation for not remitting the basic tax thereafter. This finding is absolutely incorrect since in the claim petition itself, the petitioner has raised the grievance that the Village Officer was not prepared to accept the revenue. The revision petitioner also prayed for a direction to the Village Officer to C.R.P. No. 1143 OF 2003 3 accept the revenue in respect of the property. Therefore, rejection of the claim petition on the ground that there is no satisfactory explanation for not remitting the basic tax after 1987 was not proper. 6. The Taluk Land Board was also not justified in referring only to a portion of the report of the authorised officer . I have perused the report dated 24.07.2001 filed by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (LR), Manjeri which is available at page Nos. 949-950 of the files. The authorised officer in his report has referred to various documents under which the property in question was dealt with and also the document of 1980 (document No.3693/80) under which the revision petitioner claims title. A reading of the report would indicate that the Special Deputy Tahsildar was satisfied about the genuineness of the statement made by the revision petitioner. It is not stated in the report as to whether the revision petitioner is in possession of the land in question. There is no discussion in the report about the title claimed by the claimant. It would appear that the authorised officer was under the impression that the title claimed by the claimant under various documents is correct. It is not for the authorised officer to finally decide the question of title. The jurisdiction to decide that question vests with the Taluk Land Board . What is required to be reported by the Special Deputy Tahsildar is about the possession and extent and identity of the land, boundaries of the land, the nature and description of improvements and all other relevant materials to enable the Taluk Land Board to come to a conclusion on the basis of the documentary and oral evidence available in the case. The authorised officer in his report dated 24.07.2001 has also stated thus: C.R.P. No. 1143 OF 2003 4 This statement in the report would clearly prove that the Special Deputy Tahsildar has not correctly identified the property. The extent and identity of the land to be surrendered and the extent and identity of the land to be excluded on allowing an application under section 85(8) shall be determined by the Taluk Land Board in its order. Such an order can be passed by the Taluk Land Board only after getting a proper report from the Special Deputy Tahsildar . The report submitted by the Special Deputy Tahsildar is not sufficient to enable the Taluk Land Board to dispose of the case effectively and completely . 7. In the order impugned, the Taluk Land Board has stated that the claim petitioner stated that ”no more records are to be produced “ in the case. On a perusal of the files, it is seen that photo copies of the document Nos. 3693/80, 1818/75, 796/1954 and 1341/1899 are available in the records. The originals or certified copies of these documents are not produced by the the claimant. The revision petitioner/claimant was also not diligent in prosecuting the case before the Taluk Land Board in a proper manner . 8. I am of the view that the claim petition was not properly disposed of by the Taluk Land Board . A remand is absolutely necessary in these circumstances. I set aside the order dated 25.03.2003 passed by the Taluk Land Board in so far as it relates to the revision petitioner alone and direct the Taluk Land Board to dispose of the claim C.R.P. No. 1143 OF 2003 5 petition filed by the revision petitioner afresh, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is made clear that the order dated 25.03.2003 , in so far as it relates to Vattathil Abdul Nazar , is not being dealt with in this Revision. 9. The Taluk Land Board shall direct the Special Deputy Tahsildar to file a comprehensive report containing all the relevant details. The revision petitioner shall produce all the relevant records before the Taluk Land Board within a period of two weeks from the date on which the case is posted before the Taluk Land Board. Since the revision petitioner was negligent in prosecuting the claim petition properly, I am of the view that a condition for payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs to the Government within a period of six weeks from today is to be imposed as a condition for setting aside the order impugned and for remanding the case to the Taluk Land Board. If the petitioner fails to pay the cost as ordered above, the Civil Revision Petition shall be treated as dismissed. If the petitioner pays the costs within time, the Taluk Land Board shall dispose of the matter within a period of nine months. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk C.R.P. No. 1143 OF 2003 6 K.T. SANKARAN, J. ........................................................ C.R.P. No. 1143 OF 2003 ......................................................... Dated this the 2nd January, 2008 O R D E R