IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 CRP.No. 1540 of 1998(A) ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 33/98 IN CC.131/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, MANNARGHAT .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------- T.K. BALAN, S/O. APPUKUTTAN GUPTAN, KALLOOTTIL HOUSE, KARAKKURUSSI AMSOM, PALLIKURUPPU P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. TALUK LAND BOARD, MANNARKKAD, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (LAND BOARD), MANNARKKAD. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KARAKKURISSY, MANNARKKAD TALUK. 4. SMT. KUNJUMALU AMMAL, MELEKUNNATHUKALAM, VEZHEMPURAM P.O, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R4 DIED. LRS IMPLEADED. 5. SETHU @ UNNIKRISHNAN, MELEKUNNATHUKALAM, VEZHEMPURAM P.O, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. JANARDHANAN, S/O. KUNJUMALU AMMAL, MELEKUNNATHUKALAM, VEZHEMPURAM P.O, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 7. SRASWATHY, W/O. LATE VIDYADHARAN, MELEKUNNATHUKALAM, VEZHEMPURAM P.O, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 8. MASTER SREEJITH, S/O. SARASWATHY, MELEKUNNATHUKALAM, VEZHEMPURAM P.O, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.8 IS A MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER THE 7TH RESPONDENT. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24.10.2008 IN I.A. 1793 OF 2006. ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN FOR R5 & R7 SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR FOR R5 & R7 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. N.K. THANKACHAN FOR R1TO3 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON 14.01.2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 1540 of 1998 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of January, 2010. ORDER The order of the Taluk Land Board in I.A.33 of 1998 in C.C. 131 of 1973 is assailed in this proceedings. By the said order a petition under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. Ceiling proceedings were initiated against one T.K. Kunjumalu Ammal and it was found that she was liable to surrender an extent of 44.51 acres of land. That order of the Taluk Land Board was assailed by several persons including the petitioners before this Court. This Court allowed the petition and remanded the matter to the Taluk Land Board for fresh consideration. After remand, it is seen that the petitioner laid a claim in respect of properties comprised in Sy. Nos. 55/1, 55/6, 55/0, 55/2, 55/9, 55/8 A and 55/8 B having an extent of 7.81 acres, which he obtained as per Document No.1275/1953. In the proceedings dated 19.11.1982 the Taluk CRP.1540/1998. 2 Land Board upheld the contentions of the petitioner and held that those items of properties did not belong to the declarant and were liable to be excluded. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, it was found that the landlord had clandestinely included the above items of properties in his option statement to the Taluk Land Board and the Taluk Land Board had initiated proceedings to take possession of those lands. It was then that the petition was filed by the petitioner. 3. The Taluk Land Board dismissed the petition holding that it was belated and there was no petition to condone the delay. The said order is assailed. 4. The order of the Taluk Land Board on the very face of it is untenable both on facts and in law. It can be seen from the facts of the case that the properties, over which the petitioner laid claim was found to be not belonging to the original declarant and that was directed to be excluded as per proceedings dated 19.11.1982. It is interesting to notice that the declarant had carried CRP.1540/1998. 3 the matter in revision before this Court as C.R.P. 3662 of 1982. There was no challenge to the finding of the Taluk Land Board as regards the property over which the petitioner had laid claim. Before this Court, the prayer of the revision petitioner, land owner, was confined to seeking a re-option to surrender the land. It could thus be seen that the order of the Land Tribunal, which exempted the properties, which the petitioner claimed to be those belonging to him has attained finality. Thereafter there was no question of the declarant opting those lands for surrender. When the petitioner came to know that the landlord had fraudulently included those lands in his re-option, he approached the Land Board. One fails to understand how the Land Board could have rejected his claim at all. Strictly speaking, the question of application under Section 85 (8) does not arise for the simple reason that such a petition had already been filed and that had been allowed in the earlier proceedings dated 18.11.1982. That order was passed with the declarant on the party array and after hearing him. After that, the CRP.1540/1998. 4 inclusion of the land in the re-option statement by the landlord subsequent to the order from this Court can only be treated as fraudulent. Viewed from that angle, the finding of the Land Board that the petition is not maintainable as barred by limitation since there was no petition to condone the delay cannot be sustained. 5. It is also brought to the notice of this court that there was a suit O.S.55 of 1989, instituted by the petitioner herein against the declarant and others for declaration of title and possession of the very same property involved in this proceedings, since the declarant and others claimed independent right over the same. In fact the defence in the suit by the declarant and others was that they had perfected title over the suit property by adverse possession and limitation. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner herein. It is said that an appeal is pending and the order has not become final. Any how, it is not necessary that this court should wait for a finding in that appeal, that has nothing to do with the present proceedings. CRP.1540/1998. 5 Therefore, this revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and it is held that the land which was exempted as belonging to the petitioner in the order dated 18.11.1982 shall not be taken possession of in pursuance of the re-option exercised by the declarant. It is also made clear that the above findings are only for the purpose of this proceeding and it may not affect the other proceedings between the parties in the civil court. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb. CRP.1540/1998. 6 P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 1540 of 1998 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORDER 14.01.2010