IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 9 of 2010() ------------------- LB.1546/1982 of TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): LRS OF ASSESSEE ------------------------------------ 1. V.RAVEENDRAN, S/O.KUNJU ALIAS VELAPPAN, RESIDING AT MELEVEEDU, KADAKURISSI, KANNADI P.O., PALAKKAD. 2. V.GEETHA, D/O.KUNJU ALIAS VELAPPAN, RESIDING AT PATTANATHU HOUSE, MUTHUVATTAR, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR. BY ADVS.MR.T.C.SURESH MENON MR.JIBU P THOMAS MR.P.S.APPU MR.A.R.NIMOD MR.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PALAKKAD. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD TALUK. SPL. GOVT. PLEADER GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.M.L.SAJEEVAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON 22/03/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- CRP No.9 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated 22nd March 2010 Order In this Civil Revision Petition filed under S.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, the petitioner challenges the order dated 09.07.2009 of the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad. 2. There was an earlier proceeding before this Court namely CRP No.3043/00, which was disposed of along with two other CRPs by order dated 08.01.2008. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows : “All the questions raised by the revision petitioners including claim under Section 7E of the Act shall be considered by the Taluk Land Board in the light of the observations made above. All the cases pending relating to this matter shall be disposed of by the Taluk Land CRP 9/10 2 Board within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 3. After the remand, it appears that the petitioner claimed exemption in respect of certain extents of land and produced documents to establish his contentions. It may be noticed that there was a specific direction to consider his claim under S.7E of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Taluk Land Board has now declined his claim under S.7E and by a one line order, has dismissed the claim for exemption of land. It is the said order that is assailed in this CRP. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State pointed out that the plea regarding S.7E could not be considered by the CRP 9/10 3 Taluk Land Board as could be seen from S.106B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It is also contended that going by S.84(4) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, it is not necessary that the assignments falling within the ambit of S.7E should be accepted. 5. This appears to be the third round of litigation by the petitioner. Each time the petitioner urged his claim under S.7E and other substantial claims before the Taluk Land Board, the Board without considering his objections, passed the orders. In this CRP also, the story is not different. 6. Though this Court while remanding the matter on the earlier occasion, had directed the Taluk Land Board to consider the plea under S.7E of the Act, the matter has not been dealt with in the proper manner. The Authority below has not CRP 9/10 4 given any reasons as to why the claims regarding exempted categories of land were declined. In other words, no reasons have been given as to why those claims could not be accepted. All that is stated is that the declarant has not substantiated his claim with genuine evidence. One fails to understand as to what is meant by genuine evidence. The Taluk Land Board has not considered the evidence produced by the petitioner in this regard. Therefore, the only course open to this Court is to set aside the order and remand the same to the Taluk Land Board to be disposed of afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the earlier order dated 08.01.2008 in CRP 3043/00 and two other CRPs which is made mention of in the earlier part of this Judgment. CRP 9/10 5 Accordingly, this CRP is allowed. The matter is remanded to the Court below, which shall dispose of it in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained hereinabove as expeditiously as possible. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta CRP 9/10 6