IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 CRP.No. 236 of 2008(B) --------------------- CC.687/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, OTTAPALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- N.SASIDHARAN, S/O. KALYANIKUTTY AMMA NATAKATH HOUSE, KULAPPULLI AMSOM DESOM OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.SAJU.S.A SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TALUK LAND BOARD OTTAPPALAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K. SAJEEV. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 236 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Taluk Land Board, Ottapalam dated 30.7.07. One Sasidharan has moved an application u/s 85(8) claiming 9 cents of property in Sy.No.287/1. The document is of the year 1975, i.e.972/75. The Taluk Land Board held that since it is a transfer after 1.1.70 it cannot confer him any right and therefore disallowed his application. Now the revision petition is filed claiming protection u/s 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act was introduced in the Statute by Act 21 of 2006 with effect from 18.12.06. Under the said provision “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 74 or Section 84 or in any CRP NO. 236 of 2008 -:2:- other provisions of this Act, or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract, custom or usage, or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court, tribunal or other authority, a person who at the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005, is in possession of any land, not exceeding four hectares in extent, acquired by him .......... shall be deemed to be a tenant.” So the sinequanon for getting the benefit under Act 21 of 2006 is that the person should be in possession of the property at the time of the Act. Now a perusal of the order of the Taluk Land Board makes it very clear that the property had been taken possession by the provisions under the Act and therefore the claimant did not have any possession over the property on the date of the commencement of the CRP NO. 236 of 2008 -:3:- Amendment Act. Therefore the benefit cannot be conferred on him and therefore the CRP lacks merits and the same is dismissed. Sd/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- [true copy] P.A. To Judge.