IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 CRP.No. 1023 of 2005() ---------------------- SM.2/2004 of TALUK LAND BOARD, OTTAPALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------------- AYIHAKUTTY UMMA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.LATE PULIYANHALIL IBRAHIM HAJI, KAPPUR VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANT ---------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON 18/07/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NO.2374 OF 2005 IN C.R.P NO. 1023 OF 2005 DISMISSED SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------------------------ C.R.P No. 1023 of 2005 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the day of July 2008 ORDER The order under challenge is the order dated 29.06.2005 in S.M.2/2004 of the Taluk Land Board Ottapalam. The revision petitioner herein is the wife and one of the legal heirs of the declarant. It is contended by the revision petitioner that the Taluk Land Board forwarded her objection to the Special Deputy Tahsildar for enquiry and report. It is submitted that the authorised officer did not give notice of inspection of the property of the petitioner and other legal heirs of the declarant. It is also submitted that the Taluk Land Board adjourned the case to 20.01.2005 For considering the report of the authorised officer that there was no sitting . On that day and the case was again adjourned to 27.1.2005 Since there was no sitting on that day also the case was adjourned to 28.1.2008. Again the case was adjourned to 28.2.2005 On 28.2.2005 there was no sitting and the mater was adjourned to 17.3.2005 It is also submitted that on the subsequent dated viz. 23.3.205 7.4.2005 15.4.2005 22.4.2995 which was case stands posted the case was not taken up since there was no sitting Again the case was posted to 18.5.2005 for reporting on that day which was adjourned to 30.5.2005 and again adjourned to 31.5.2005 and 6.6.2005. 6.6.2005 there was also no sitting and the matter was taken up on 9.6.2005. It is submitted that the revision petitioner sought time to file objection and for adducing evidence The request was no granted and the matter was taken for orders. The main grievance of the revision petitioner is that the authorised officer submityted the report on on 21.5.2005 and the petitioners counsel came to know about it only on 30.05.2005 and that there was no sufficient time to get the matter of the report to file objection between 30.5.2005 and 9.6.2005 From the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner I find that the case was posted for submission of the respor on 20.1.2005. Subsequently on several future date. But the authorised officer submitted the report only on 24.5.2005 and the case was taken up for orders on 19.6.2005 As submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petition no sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner to file objection to the authorised oficer's report and to adduce evidence in this case the Taluk Land Board ought to have given a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate their contentions . I find that the manner in which the case was dealt with by the Taluk Land Board is not convincing. It is also brought to my notice that the authorised oficer visited the property or inspected the property without notice or intimation to the petitioner . In the circusmtances it is just and proper to direct the Taluk Land Board to decide the case afresh after giving sufficient opportunity to the party to substantiate their contentions In the result the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The case is remanded to the Land Tribunal for denovo consideration. The revision petitioner is at liberty to adduce further evidence if any . The Land Board shall pass order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order. There will be no order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE es