IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 963 of 2003 AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 15.2.2003 IN TLB 1626/73/HDS ON THE FILE OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD, HOSDURG. REVN. PETITIONER: CLAIMANT: --------------------------------- N.V.KANNAN NAIR, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.PERIYAL UKKARAN NAIR, EXAPUZHA, CHAYYOM P.O., NILESHWAR, VILLAGE OF KINANOOR, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJEEVAN SRI.DILIP MOHAN SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. THE CHAIRMAN, TALUK LAND BOARD, HOSDURG. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.DILEEP THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.M.P.NO.2293/2003 IN C.R.P.NO.963/2003 DISMISSED 08/02/2008 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 963 OF 2003 F -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th February, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner is the claimant under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. His claim petition was rejected by the Taluk Land Board as per the order impugned in this Revision. 2. Final order was passed by the Taluk Land Board on 27.3.1982, holding that the declarant, K.J.Thomas, was liable to surrender an extent of 193.26 acres of land as surplus land. An extent of 48.26 acres of land was already surrendered by him and the balance to be surrendered was 145 acres. The petitioner herein filed a claim petition claiming title and possession in respect of 3 acres 57 ¾ cents of land in R.S.No.304/1 of Kinanur Village, which is covered by document Nos.1355/1917 and 1356/1917. As per these documents, the father of the claim petitioner, namely, Ukkaran Nair, had title and possession to the properties. It is also alleged that the claim petitioner purchased jenm right in respect of 2.60 acres of land in R.S.No.304/1 as per the order in O.A.No.2465 of 1975 of the Devaswom Land Tribunal No.6, Kannur. It is also stated that the claim petitioner purchased an extent of 95 cents in R.S.No.304/1 of Kinanur Village as per two sale deeds executed on 22.1.1972 and C.R.P. NO.963 OF 2003 :: 2 :: 17.7.1981. That property was subject matter of a suit as O.S.No.96 of 1981, Sub Court, Kasaragod. The suit was compromised and delivery was effected on 11.9.1998 as per the terms of the decree. The claim petitioner contended that he had effected improvements in the property by planting cashew and coconut trees. The claimant contended that the declarant has no right, title or possession over the property claimed by him. 3. The Authorised Officer submitted a report dated 5.8.2000. He reported that the extent of 2.6 acres of land was purchased by Ukkaran Nair in 1917 and that the claim petitioner is the only son of Ukkaran Nair. The report further reveals that the claimant purchased fractional interest as per document Nos.124 of 1972 and 2152 of 1981 and he filed a suit for partition of his 3/10 share. As per the final decree in the partition suit, the claim petitioner got an extent of 97 ¾ cents in R.S.No.304/1. It was reported that the claim petitioner is in possession of an extent of 3 acres 57 ¾ cents in R.S.No.304/1. On measurement, it was found that a portion of the surplus land taken possession of from K.J.Thomas, is included in the property claimed by the claim petitioner. The Authorised Officer also saw a fence on the eastern boundary of the property belonging to the petitioner and within that fence a portion of the property taken possession of from the declarant is included. Another report was filed on 7.2.2003 C.R.P. NO.963 OF 2003 :: 3 :: wherein it is stated that the claim petitioner had encroached upon the surplus land and that the Village Authorities had initiated eviction proceedings against him. 4. The claim petition as well as the petition for condonation of delay were rejected by the Taluk Land Board. The Taluk Land Board rejected the claim petition holding that the claim petitioner had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish that the “land claimed in the case is not the surplus land ordered to be surrendered by K.J.Thomas”. I am of the view that this approach made by the Taluk Land Board is not legal or proper. 5. The claim petitioner was not issued with notice by the Taluk Land Board before passing the final order dated 27.3.1982. There is nothing to indicate that he was aware of the proceedings and that the petition was deliberately filed belatedly. The Taluk Land Board was, therefore, not justified in rejecting the petition on the ground that the petition was time barred. 6. As regards the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner, the Taluk Land Board has not arrived at any finding as to whether the extent claimed by him really belongs to him. The question to be enquired C.R.P. NO.963 OF 2003 :: 4 :: into in a claim petition filed under Section 85(8) is whether the claim petitioner has title and possession in respect of the property claimed by him. The report submitted by the Authorised Officer would indicate that the petitioner has title to an extent of 3.57 ¾ acres of land. The Taluk Land Board has not arrived at any finding on this aspect. The Taluk Land Board has not rejected the report dated 5.8.2000. The second report would indicate that the claim petitioner has encroached upon the surplus land which was taken possession of from K.J.Thomas. 7. The authorised officer having reported that the claim petitioner has title to an extent of 3.57¾ acres of land, the matter to be enquired into by the Taluk Land Board is whether the petitioner has established title and whether that extent of land takes in any portion of land ordered to be surrendered or which was taken possession of as excess land. If it is found that any portion of the land which was taken possession of as excess land is included in the portion of land possessed by the claim petitioner and that the claim petitioner has title to that land, certainly the Taluk Land Board should allow the claim petition and delete that much extent of land from the account of the declarant. In the case on hand, the Taluk Land Board has not arrived at any clear finding as to whether the claim petitioner has title to the extent of 3.57 ¾ acres of land and whether he has title to the portion of the land which was taken possession of as if it C.R.P. NO.963 OF 2003 :: 5 :: belonged to the declarant. The crucial question to be decided in the claim petition having not been decided by the Taluk Land Board, I have no other alternative but to set aside the order passed by the Taluk Land Board and to remand the matter to the Taluk Land Board for fresh disposal of the case in accordance with law. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, the order passed by the Taluk Land Board is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Taluk Land Board for fresh disposal of the claim petition in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in this order. The Taluk Land Board shall dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- C.R.P.NO. 963 OF 2003 F O R D E R 8th February, 2008 -------------------------------------------