IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1933 CRP.No. 398 of 2010() -------------------------------- CR.NO.462/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, THIRURANGADI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------- PANDHALAKKARAN ABOOBECKER MOLLA, S/O.YOOSAF MOLLA, IRINGALLOOR AMSOM DESOM PARAPPOOR P.O., THIRURANGADI TALUK,PIN-680 552 MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, TIRURANGADI TALUK, TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 101. 3. THE THAHASILDAR, TIRURANGADI TALUK, TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 101. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PARAPPOOR VILLAGE, TIRURANGADI TALUK, PARAPPUR P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-680 552. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.398 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 18th day of November, 2011 O R D E R This Civil Revision is in challenge of proceeding in CR- 462/73 dated 20.01.2010 of the Taluk Land Board, Thirurangadi (for short, “the TLB”) to the extent that according to the petitioner, his claim to exempt 0.32 acres in Sy. No.125/9 was not considered by the TLB. 2. The TLB in its order dated 30.02.2011 directed legal heirs of the declarant to surrender 1.91 acres of land comprised by 74 cents in R.S. No.126/5, 32 cents in R.S. No.125/9 and 85 cents in R.S. No.1712. Petitioner filed claim under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short, “the Act”) on 15.03.1991 claiming that he is a cultivating tenant of the property comprised in R.S. No.125/9 and R.S. No.126/5 having obtained a lease of the said properties prior to 01.04.1964 and that he has obtained purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal, Vengara. Claim was rejected by the TLB for the reason of some corrections in the purchase certificate produced by petitioner. Petitioner challenged that order in this Court in C.R.P. No.573 of 2001 and C.R.P. No.398 of 2010 -: 2 :- this Court by order dated 02.11.2007 remitted the matter to the TLB for fresh decision with a direction to the TLB to decide whether corrections in the purchase certificate are the contribution of petitioner or done by the Land Tribunal. Pursuant to that order the TLB considered the claim of petitioner under Sec.85(8) of the Act afresh after getting the purchase certificate verified. In the impugned order the TLB has stated that the purchase certificate was got verified with the Land Tribunal, Vengara and it was revealed that corrections in the purchase certificate were made by the officials of the Tribunal and that it was not the result of any fraud or coercion on the part of petitioner. But the TLB exempted only 74 cents in R.S. No.126/5 while it did not mention anything about the claim made by petitioner over 32 cents in R.S. No.125/9. To that extent the order of the TLB is under challenge in this Civil Revision. 3. Learned counsel submitted that following finding of the TLB that the purchase certificate is proper and valid, exemption should have been granted for entire property covered by the purchase certificate. 4. I have heard learned Government Pleader also. 5. It is not clear from the impugned order whether there C.R.P. No.398 of 2010 -: 3 :- was any omission on the part of the TLB to exempt the 32 cents in R.S. No.125/9 or it was for any valid reason that the said 32 cents in R.S. No.125/9 was not included in the land to be exempted as claimed by petitioner. In that view of the matter the claim made by the petitioner has to be considered afresh to the extent it concerned 32 cents in R.S. No.125/9. Civil Revision is allowed. Claim made by petitioner under Sec.85(8) of the Act dated 15.03.1991 is remitted to the TLB to decide whether consequent to the finding it has entered as to validity of purchase certificate, the 32 cents in R.S. No.125/9 also could be exempted from the land to be surrendered. The TLB shall decide the matter as early as possible. All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv