IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 540 of 2004(I) ------------------------------------ TLB.1342/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, KASARGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------ C.S.SETHURAMAN, S/O.C.S.SAMANNA, KRISHNA KRIPA, BHAGAVATHI NAGAR, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, MANNAGUDDA, MANGALORE-3. BY ADV.MR.K.N.SIVASANKARAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------- -------- 1. M.NARASIMHA SHENAI, S/O.AMACHANDRA SHANBHOGUE, HOSBETTU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. 2. TALUK LAND BOARD, KASARAGOD. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.V.V.ASOKAN, SMT.S.AMINA. R2 & R3 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.M.L.SAJEEVAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON 06/04/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 540 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010. ORDER The Civil Revision Petition is against the order of the Taluk Land Board dated 15.1.2004 in TLB 1342 of 1973. 2. The Taluk Land Board, Kasaragod initiated ceiling proceedings against Sri.M. Ramachandra Shanbhogue. The land owner disclosed that an extent of 169.56 acres was held by him and the half right therein belonged to his son. He therefore claimed that he had only 84.78 acres in his possession. The Taluk Land Board issued a revised statement pointing out that he has another 48.68 acres in other plots and therefore the father and the son had 106.62 acres each. Pending proceedings Ramachanda Shanbhogue died and the first respondent herein was recorded as the legal heir. 3. The petitioner that the claim in respect of one acre of the land in respect of R.S.244/2 of Kunjathur CRP.540/2004. 2 village. He claimed that he was a cultivating tenant in respect of that item of property. It is a portion of a larger extent of 14.14 acres which belonged to the original declarant one Ramachandra Naik on Chalageni lease obtained from the land owner late Sri. Ramachandra Shambhogue in the year 1960. The tenant assigned his leasehold right in favour of one Santhappa Naik as per a registered deed dated 13.6.1980. Santhappa Naik assigned 13.14 acres in favour of Ramalu Naik and the remaining 1 acres in favour of the petitioner herein. In the ceiling case Ramalu Naidu filed a claim petition in respect of 13.14 acres claiming exemption. Petitioner laid claim in respect of one acre of land while the Taluk Land Board accepted the claim of Ramalu Naidu, declined the claim of the petitioner. Petitioner challenges the order. 4. Paragraph 18 of the order deals with the claim of the petitioner. The Taluk Land Board issued noticed to the petitioner and enquiries were conducted. The Taluk Land Board observed that petitioner had produced certain CRP.540/2004. 3 documents, which are all dated after 1.4.1964 except the rent receipt which is dated 19.3.1964. But that does not disclose that the properties were held by him. No other documents were produced. It is stated that the authorised officer found against him. 5. Petitioner has claimed that he has produced several documents in support of his claim. He had traced his title to Ramahandra Shanbhogue. Except saying that some documents have been produced, the Taluk Land Board has not considered in detail what exactly are the documents what it disclosed. Apart from the above fact, Section 7E of Kerala Land Reforms Act will have to be considered. It is true that the Revenue Inspector has filed a report against the petitioner. But that is not conclusive. As already stated, the petitioner claims to have produced several documents, which shows that he had purchased a tenancy right from a cultivating tenant. At any rate, the claim requires reconsideration at the hands of the Taluk Land Board. CRP.540/2004. 4 In the result, the impugned order as against the petitioner is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Taluk Land Board for fresh consideration in accordance with law and in the light of what has been stated above. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.