IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.NO. 2857 OF 2000(H) ----------------------- {IN TLB 1.253/1973 OF TALUK LAND BOARD, THALASSERY} .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/ LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 1, 2, 6 & 7: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PANAMBRON NABEESUMMA, W/O.KUNNATH CHIRAYIL ABDURAHIMAN, ARALAM AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O.ARALAM, DISTRICT KANNUR. 2 PANAMBRON AYISHA, W/O.KUNNATH CHIRAYIL ABDURAHIMAN, DO. DO. 3. PANAMBRON ALI, S/O. KUNNATH CHIRAYIL ABDURAHIMAN, ARALAM AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O.ARALAM, DISTRICT KANNUR, REPRESEBTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY, VAZHAVALAPPU NADIRA ALI, W/O.PANAMBRON ALI, RESIDING AT ARALAM AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O.ARALAM, DISTRICT KANNUR. 4. PANAMBRON MARIUMMA, W/O.KUNNATH CHIRAYIL ABDURAHIMAN, ARALAM AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O.ARALAM, DISTRICT KANNUR. BY ADV. SMT.VIDHYA. A.C SRI.SURESH SUKUMAR SRI.A.C.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT(S)/LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 & 10: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, LAND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. CRP.NO. 2857 OF 2000 :: 2 :: 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 4. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, THALASSERY. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, THALASSERY. 6. PANAMBRON ABDUL KHADER, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN, ARALAM AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O.ARALAM, DISTRICT KANNUR. 7. PANAMBRON ABDULLA, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN, DO. DO. 8. PANAMBRON KUNHAMINA, D/O.ABDURAHIMAN, DO. DO. 9. PANAMBRON KHADEEJA, D/O.ABDURAHIMAN, DO. DO. 10. PANAMBRON PATHUMMA, D/O.ABDURAHIMAN, DO. DO. 11. PANAMBRON KUNHALU, D/O.ABDURAHIMAN, DO. DO. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN R7 BY ADVS.SRI.M.C.SEN, SENIOR ADVOCATE , SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN, & SMT.SAVITHA GANAPATHIYATAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH CRP NO.2949 OF 2000 ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP.NO. 2857 OF 2000 :: :: ORDER ON I.A.No.5778/00 IN CRP.NO. 2857 OF 2000 DISMISSED. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) 09.4.2010. JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. To Judge. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- C.RP.Nos.2857 & 2949 of 2000 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010 O R D E R These two revisions are filed challenging the orders passed by the Taluk Land Board, Thalassery in the ceiling proceedings, numbered TLB-1253/73/Tly, in respect of one Sri.Kunnath Chirayil Abdul Rahiman, the declarant in the said proceeding. C.R.P.No.2857/00 is filed by the widow and some of the children of the abovesaid Abdul Rahiman and the other, C.R.P.No.2949/00 by one of his sons. 2. Short facts giving rise to these revisions may be summed up thus: Sri.Kunnath Chirayil Abdul Rahiman submitted a ceiling return in respect of the properties held by him as mandated by Section 85(2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act {for short “the Act”}. His family consisted of 9 members including him and the Taluk Land Board, on determination of the excess area held by him, found that he is entitled to have a deduction of 20 C.RP.Nos.2857 & 2949 of 2000 :: 2 :: acres, the maximum limit fixed under the Act. Apart from the above extent of land, the declarant was also entitled to exemption of 22.5 cents under Section 81 of the Act. The excess land to be surrendered by the statement giver was determined as 29 acres. Pending the proceedings over the determination of the excess area, the statement giver had passed away and, therefore, notices with draft statement were issued to his widow. In response to such notices, the widow and another one Kandoth Hamza filed objections over the determination of the excess area of the declarant. The Taluk Land Board, after due enquiry and examining the objections determined the excess area of late Abdul Rahiman as23 acres 55 cents and directed his legal representatives to surrender that excess area. The widow of Abdul Rahiman, first petitioner in C.R.P.No.2857/00, challenged that order before this court filing a revision C.R.P.No.1424/77. Sri.Kandoth Hamza, who also objected to the determination of the C.RP.Nos.2857 & 2949 of 2000 :: 3 :: excess area filed another revision C.R.P.No.1410/77. This court by common order dated 21.3.1979 disposed both the above revisions directing the Taluk Land Board to consider the matter afresh after giving opportunity to both parties, and pass an order on merits. On such remission, the Taluk Land Board conducted further enquiry in which the legal representatives of Abdul Rahiman and also Kandoth Hamza let in evidence to substantiate their objections. After such enquiry, the Taluk Land Board passed an order on 29.3.1984 determining the excess area to be surrendered by the statement giver as 17 acres 69 cents. That order of the Taluk Land Board was challenged by the widow and some children of statement giver Abdul Rahiman filing C.R.P.No.1334/84. Another revision was separately filed by three others, who are also the children of the statement giver Abdul Rahiman as C.R.P.No.1460/84. Both those revisions were heard together and disposed of by a common order dated 22.7.1987. The challenges C.RP.Nos.2857 & 2949 of 2000 :: 4 :: canvassed in the revision related to objection Nos.3, 5 and 7 raised before the Taluk Land Board. Objection No.3 raised by the legal representatives of Abdul Rahiman related to the claim set up by one of the daughters of the statement giver, Smt.Kunhamina, was married before 1.1.1970, and so much so, the land in her possession as a donee from Abdul Rahiman should be excluded from his account. Objection No.5 related to the claim over 4.50 acres of land in the possession of another daughter Panapurial Mariamma as a tenant. Though the document executed in her favour is styled as a sale deed, the nomenclature was not decisive and under that deed, she had obtained tenancy right over that property was the tenor of the objection. The Taluk Land Board has repelled the aforesaid claims set up over the property determined as that of Abdul Rahiman. This court in the common order disposing the revisions set aside the order of the Taluk Land Board with respect to the objection Nos.3 and 5 raised as above, directing the Board to C.RP.Nos.2857 & 2949 of 2000 :: 5 :: examine such objections for de novo consideration. Objection No.7 repelled by the Taluk Land Board, which was challenged by the revision petitions was found meritless, and the challenge canvassed thereof was negatived. This court has passed an order in the revisions as indicated below: “The order of the Taluk Land Board insofar as it relates to objection Nos.3 and 5, is set aside; and the case covered by those objections is remanded to the Taluk Land Board for a de novo consideration. In all other respects, the order is sustained.” (Emphasis supplied) 3. Pursuant to such remission, the Taluk Land Board considered the objections raised in respect of objection Nos.3 and 5 canvassed by the legal representatives of the statement giver and the present orders have been passed sustaining the objections and granting exemption to the land covered by such objections from the excess area determined as that of the statement giver. The legal representatives of the statement giver not being satisfied with the orders C.RP.Nos.2857 & 2949 of 2000 :: 6 :: passed by the Taluk Land Board, as indicated above, have filed these two revisions under Section 103 of the Act. 4. I heard the counsel on both sides. 5. Perusing the orders passed by the Taluk Land Board with reference to the previous common order passed on 22.7.1987 in C.R.P.Nos.1334/84 and 1460/84, I find, it is not open to the legal representatives of the statement giver to re-open any of the issues concluded under the common order in the aforesaid revisions. Whatever be the objections canvassed by the legal representatives of the statement giver against the determination of the excess area after the disposal of the revision petitions, a further enquiry by the Taluk Land Board was permissible only in respect of objection Nos.3 and 5 alone and it is not open to any of them to take up any objection with respect to any other matter turned down by the Taluk Land Board and the decision thereof upheld by this court in the revisions. The Taluk Land C.RP.Nos.2857 & 2949 of 2000 :: 7 :: Board under the impugned order has upheld the objections raised in respect of objection Nos.3 and 5 in its entirety and has excluded the land covered by the objections from the excess area determined as that of the statement giver, the declarant, for surrender. The Taluk Land Board, after exempting the lands covered by objection Nos.3 and 5, had directed the surrender 10 acres and 19 cents of land as the excess area of the statement giver. In response to the opportunity extended to the legal representatives to furnish their option, the widow of the statement giver had filed a statement with a plan. After due enquiry through the authorised office, the Board has determined and specified the land with particulars of Survey number to be surrendered by the legal representatives of the statement giver. The challenge canvassed by filing these revisions, even after the Taluk Land Board has upheld objection Nos.3 and 5 and exempted the lands covered under those objections, no doubt, indicates the attempt of the legal C.RP.Nos.2857 & 2949 of 2000 :: 8 :: representatives of the declarant to delay the surrender of the excess area determined under the impugned order by the Taluk Land Board. By virtue of these revisions, considerable delay had been caused in taking over possession of such excess area, though no ground whatsoever was available to the legal representatives of the statement giver to impeach the legality, propriety and correctness of the orders of the Taluk Land Board. There is no merit in the revisions, and both the revisions are dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy//