IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 361 of 2009() ------------------------------- REVN. PETITIONER(S): (CLAIMANTS) -------------------------------- 1. DOWLATHUNISSA BEEVI, WIFE OF MOHAMMED SALIH, THATTANPADAM KALAM, POST PANAYUR, ATHICODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. MOHAMMED ALI, S/O.MOHAMMED SALIH, THATTANPADAM KALAM,POST PANAYUR,ATHICODE,PALAKKAD DISTRICT,NOW R/AT FLAT NO.3,BIN OMAR BUILDING, P.O.BOX 112, DAMMAM-31411,REP.BY HIS P/A HOLDER DOWLATHUNISSA BEEVI,W/O MOHAMMED SALIH,THATTANPADAM KALAM, POST PANAYUR,ATHICODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.D.KRISHNA PRASAD MR.T.P.ELDHOSE SMT.O.K.SANTHA MARY TREASE P.L. RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. NOORJAHAN, W/O.C.ABDUL WAHAB, VALLANGY HOUSE, THATHAMANGALAM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. MUMTHAZ, D/O.C.ABDUL WAHAB, VALLANGY HOUSE, TATHAMANGALAM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. C.R.P. NO.361/2009 7. JASMINE, D/O.C.ABDUL WAHAB, VALLANGY HOUSE, TATHAMANGALAM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 8. HAKKIM BADUSHA, S/O.C.ABDUL WAHAB, VALLANGY HOUSE, TATHAMANGALAM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.M.L.SAJEEVAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 361 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010. ORDER Aggrieved by the order of Taluk Land Board, Palakkad in L.B. 256 of 1973, the petitioner has come up in revision before this court under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 2. The statutory family of the declarant consisted of his wife and minor children. According to them they were holding 14.08 Acres of land. Petitioners would say that they are entitled to hold 15 acres as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Therefore, it is contended that the declarant was holding less than the area he was entitled to hold. Wife of the declarant sold 13.98 acres of land by way of two sale deeds dated 11.6.1974 and 29.6.1974. It is claimed that the assignment being at a point of time when the declarant had land within the ceiling area, the sale deeds CRP. 361/2009. 2 are valid in law. One may notice here that in fact the wife of the declarant and the statutory family was entitled to hold 15 acres. 3. It appears that subsequently the declarant and his wife had purchased 12.48 acres of land in Chittur Taluk. That was the subject matter of enquiry in S.M. proceedings 17 of 1979 before the Taluk Land Board, Chittur. In that proceedings the Taluk Land Board directed the declarant to surrender 23 cents in Chittur Taluk. The said order has become final. 4. The petitioners would say that long thereafter in 2002, the Taluk Land Board purported to re-determine the ceiling area of the statutory family of Abdul Wahab, who died in the year 1978. Proceedings were initiated against his legal heirs. Since they had no interest in the properties as they had sold the properties, they did not appear before the Land Tribunal and the Land Tribunal passed an ex-parte order for surrender of the land. CRP. 361/2009. 3 5. The petitioners, on coming to know about the order moved a petition under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. As per the direction of this court in C.R.P. 1115 of 2002, the matter was taken up by the Taluk Land Board for consideration. The revision petitioners entered appearance before the land Board and contested the matter. It is specifically pointed out that they had purchased the property from the wife of the declarant at the time when the statutory family of the declarant did not hold any land in excess of the ceiling limit. The complaint of the petitioners is that without adverting to the real facts and holding that the sale is hit by Section 84 of the Land Reforms Act, their claim is turned down. According to them, that order cannot be sustained in law. 6. Learned Government Pleader points out that the purchase by the petitioners and others were at the time when ceiling proceedings were pending and therefore the transactions are hit by Section 84. CRP. 361/2009. 4 7. A reading of the impugned order shows inconsistent versions. It seems that there were several claims under Section 7E of the Act. The statutory family of Abdul Wahab consisting of himself, his wife and three children were entitled to hold maximum 15 acres and minimum 12 acres. The claim of the petitioners is that it was while the statutory family was holding less than the area that they had purchased the property from them. It is this issue that was specifically considered. 8. Learned Government Pleader submits that no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned order. It is also submitted that the proceedings have been validly completed and no grounds are made out to interfere. 9. A reading of the order shows that the real issues have not been considered in the proper perspective. The definite claim of the petitioners is that they had purchased the property at the time when the statutory family of the declarant was entitled to hold 15 acres. The petitioners have also pointed out that ceiling proceedings CRP. 361/2009. 5 were initiated against the property in Chittur Taluk and that proceedings had become final. The order impugned shows that there are several claimants under Section 7E of the Act. If they succeed, automatically the extent of land so given to those claimants will be from the account of the statutory family, so that at this point of time it is not possible to say as contended by the learned Government Pleader that the statutory family was holding land in excess than the ceiling area. Going by the available facts, the petitioners too are entitled to claim the benefit of Section 7E. Of course, for that benefit, they will have to approach the Land Tribunal concerned. A fresh determination is absolutely necessary. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Taluk Land Board for fresh determination in accordance with law and in the light of what has been stated above. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.