IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008/ 23RD MAGHA 1929 RP.No. 1025 of 2007 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRP.1174/2002 .................................. REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------ 1. P.T.JOY, PANAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.VALILLAPUZHA, AREAKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. P.T.JOHNEY, PANAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.VALILLAPUZHA, AREAKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. P.T.JAMES (WRONGLY SHOWN IN ORDERS AS P.T.JANNU), PANAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.VALILLAPUZHA, AREAKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. P.T.TOMY, PANAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.VALILLAPUZHA, AREAKODE, MALAPPURAM DIST. 5. P.T.KATHREENA, PANAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.VALILLAPUZHA, AREAKODE, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------- 1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, ERNAD, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, ERNAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R.P NO. 1025/2007 3. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V.T.K. MOHANAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. 1025 OF 2007 IN C.R.P. NO. 1174 OF 2002 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008. O R D E R This review petition is preferred to review my judgment dated 3.7.07. The grievances ventilated are that the Taluk Land Board has directed to surrender 3.685 standard acres whereas this Court has directed 5.21 acres of land to be surrendered. Then some claim is made under Section 7(E) of the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act in the present petition. 2. I have gone through the order passed by me. The Taluk land Board found that the total extent of land possessed by the declarant is 15.06 ordinary acres equivalent to 7.65 standard acres. The total extent of land exempted is found as 3.79 acres and the ceiling area applicable was made as 6 acres. Therefore the balance extent was ordered to surrendered. So far as the ceiling area is concerned if he is an adult unmarried person he is entitled to 5 standard acres, however that, the ceiling area shall not R.P. 1025/07 IN CRP NO. 1174 of 2002 -:2:- be less than 6 acres or more than 7.5 acres. In this case the Court found that he is entitled to the whole six acres of ordinary land and the balance was ordered to be surrendered. That is what is precisely considered by this Court and held. So far as applicability of S.7(E) of Act 21 of 2006 is concerned it starts with the provision 'not withstanding anything contained in'. Therefore the declarant cannot have the protection under Section 7(E) of the Land Reforms Act for the reason that it is only a third person in possession who is entitled to the protection and not the declarant. If there are any other persons aggrieved and who are entitled to the benefit under Section 7(E), I make it clear this judgment will not stand in the way. With this observation, this R.P. is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-