IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 CRP.No. 796 of 2002() --------------------- CC.365/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, MANNARKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPLICANT: ------------------ SAVITHRI,CHILAMBATH CHAMMOTH, THIRUNARAYANAPURAM,OTTAPALAM TALUK,REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHRI SURESH,SON OF LATE KRISHNAN MANNADIAR,CHANDIRAMTHODI, EDATHANATTUKARA BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE TALUK LAND BOARD,MANNARKKAD. 3. THE TAHSILDAR,MANNARKKAD. ADDL. R4. C.P.UMMER HAJI, S/O. KUNHU MOIDU HAJI, RESIDING AT CHETTIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU P.O., (VIA) ALANELLUR, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD. (ADDITIONAL R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12.2.2008 IN C.M.P. NO. 2656 OF 2002). BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. L.G. SURESH BABU-R1 TO R3 SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH FOR ADDL.R4 SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR ADDL.R4 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN C.M.P. NO.2100 OF 2002 IN C.R.P. NO. 796 OF 2002. DISMISSED 16.9.2008 Sd/-(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO.796 OF 2002 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008 O R D E R The revision petitioner is an applicant under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the K.L.R. Act"). In the proceedings before the Taluk Land Board, Mannarkkad as C.C. No.365 of 1973, one Sankunni Mannadiar is the declarant. The said Sankunni Mannadiar died on 9.3.1979. By order dated 19.10.1976, the Taluk Land Board directed the declarant to surrender 16.19 acres of land in various survey numbers being excess land. Smt. Rajani, the grand daughter of the deceased declarant claimed title over 8 acres of land by virtue of the sale deed dated 18.3.1979 executed in her favour by the declarant. Subsequent to the death of the declarant, the proceedings continued against his legal heirs. Smt. Rajani was also impleaded as a party. 2. Two claimants before the Taluk Land Board, namely the revision petitioner herein and one Sundaran claimed title over 3.70 acres each by C.R.P. NO.796/2002 2 virtue of the sale deeds executed by Smt. Rajani in their favour. They claimed that being bona fide purchasers for valid consideration, their property cannot be treated as excess land. It is pointed out that one Ummer Haji who claimed title over 2.92 acres of land out of the property ordered to be surrendered had obtained an order dated 25.1.1988 in his favour whereby the said extent of land was excluded from being taken over as excess land. Considering the fact that the said Ummer Haji came into possession of the property by virtue of the sale deed executed by the declarant, the revision petitioner also submitted that for the very same reason 3.70 acres of land in the possession of Shri Sundaran was also excluded from being taken over as excess land by order of this Court dated 1.9.1989 in C.R.P. No.1212 of 1989. 3. I have gone through the order passed by this Court in C.R.P. No.1212 of 1989. Following the order passed in favour of Ummer Haji, this Court passed the order dated 1.9.1989 extending the same protection to Sundaran. This Court held that "the equitable relief of a declaration that the order under challenge shall not be enforced against the petitioner so long as the order directing Ummer Haji to surrender land made mention of therein is not enforced against him (Ummer Haji)". This order was challenged by the State of Kerala before the Supreme Court, but the same C.R.P. NO.796/2002 3 ended in dismissal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that both Sundaran and the revision petitioner obtained the properties by way of sale deeds from the legatee of the declarant, Smt. Rajani and hence for the same reasons stated by this Court in the order in C.R.P. No.1212 of 1989, the revision petitioner is also entitled to get 3.70 acres of land comprised in Survey No.492/1A excluded from being taken possession of as excess land. I find considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel. I have perused the orders passed in favour of Ummer Haji and Sundaran and I find that the same reasons are applicable in the case of the revision petitioner also. Hence, 3.70 acres of land in the possession of the revision petitioner is excluded from being taken over as excess land. 5. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that in view of Section 7 E of the K.L.R. Act, the property claimed by the revision petitioner may be excluded from the account of the declarant. Going by Section 7E of the K.L.R. Act, I find that the claim of the revision petitioner is sustainable. The claimant is in possession of land and the said property was purchased by her for valid C.R.P. NO.796/2002 4 consideration from Smt. Rajani who got the property from the declarant by virtue of the sale deed executed in her favour by the declarant. Since the transaction was effected between the statutory period mentioned in Section 7 E of the K.L.R. Act, admittedly she is a person who is entitled to hold the land as a deemed tenant. In the above circumstances, the claim preferred by the revision petitioner is liable to be allowed. In view of the finding as stated above, the extent of 3.70 acres of land in Survey No. 492/1A owned by the revision petitioner shall be excluded from the account of the declarant. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as above. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C.R.P. NO.796/2002 5 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P. NO.796/2002 O R D E R 16th September, 2008 C.R.P. NO.796/2002 6