IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 520 of 2004() --------------------- {IN TLB.1342/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, KASARGOD} .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): LRS OF DECEASED CLAIM PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. YAMUNA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O. LATE BABU SHETTY, LAKKANAPADU, KUNHATHUR, VIA MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. KUSUMA, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O. LATE BABU SHETTY, LAKKANAPADU, KUNHATHUR, VIA MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. SANJEEVA SHETTY, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. LATE BABU SHETTY, LAKKANAPADU, KUNHATHUR VIA MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. LALITHA, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O. LATE BABU SHETTY, LAKKANAPADU, KUNHATHUR VIA. MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. RAMANATHA SETTY, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. LATE BABU SHETTY, LAKKANAPADU, KUNHATHUR VIA MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 6. DIVAKARA SHETTY, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. LATE BABU SHETTY, LAKKANAPADU, KUNHATHUR VIA MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 7. USHA, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O. LATE BABU SHETTY, LAKKANAPADU, KUNHATHUR VIA MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.T.P.ELDHO CRP.No. 520 of 2004() ::2 :: RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TALUK LAND BOARD, KASARAGOD. 3. M. RAMACHANDRA SHAMBOGUE, S/O. NARAYANA SHAMBOGUE, HOSABETTU. R1 & 2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.L.SAJEEV THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP.No. 520 of 2004() ::3 :: ORDER ON I.A.No.1436/04 IN CRP No.520/04 DISMISSED. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) 10.2.2010. JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. To Judge. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ C.R.P.No.520 of 2004 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010 O R D E R The revision is directed against the order of the Taluk Land Board, Kasaragod dated 15.1.2004 in respect of the ceiling proceedings initiated against Sri.M.Ramachandra Shambogue of Hosabettu in Kasargode Taluk. 2. The revision petitioners are the legal heirs of one Babu Shetty, S/o.Aithappa Shetty, Kunjathur Village, who had set up claims over three items of properties viz., 26 cents in R.S.No.232/1, 44 cents in R.S.No.231/2 and 1.92 acres in R.S.No.232/3 altogether 2.62 Acres, all in Kunjathur Village, which originally was owned and belonged to the declarant. 3. The claimant filing an application under Section 85(5) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act {for short 'the Act'} had contended that he had obtained a purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal recognising his status as a C.R.P.No.520 of 2004 :: 2 :: cultivating tenant in possession and enjoyment of the above three items of properties. He had also produced a copy of the Purchase Certificate issued to him in S.M.no.205/01 by the Land Tribunal-I, Kasargod. The Taluk Land Board declined to act upon the Purchase Certificate produced, in view of a report filed by the Authorised Officer that the order passed by the Tribunal had been set aside by the Appellate Authority with the case remanded for fresh consideration. Claimant had not produced any evidence other than the production of a copy of the Purchase Certificate to substantiate his claim, was taken into account with reference to the report of the Authorised Officer by the Taluk Land Board to conclude that his claim is not sustainable. In that view of the matter, the claim was turned down. Aggrieved by the rejection of the claim, the revision has been filed by the legal heirs of the claimant, who had already passed away. C.R.P.No.520 of 2004 :: 3 :: 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the appeal preferred by the landlord, the order of the Land Tribunal directing issue of Purchase Certificate was cancelled with a direction to consider the matter afresh. Pursuant to such remission, it is submitted, the Land Tribunal, after reconsideration, again accepted the case of the predecessor of the present petitioners that he was a cultivating tenant over the three items covered by the order of the Land Tribunal. No doubt, the properties in respect of which he had raised a claim before the Taluk Land Board was covered by the Purchase Certificate of the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal recognising his status as a cultivating tenant, on the materials produced in the proceedings, ordered for issuing C.R.P.No.520 of 2004 :: 4 :: Purchase Certificate in his favour. Learned counsel has produced before me the order of the Land Tribunal and also the Purchase Certificate issued. A Purchase Certificate has to be treated as conclusive title of a person in whose favour it has been issued as mandated by Sub section (2) of Section 72k of the Act, which reads as follows: “The certificate of purchase issued under sub-section (1) shall be conclusive proof of the assignment to the tenant of the right, title and interest of the landowner and the intermediaries, if any, over the holding or portion thereof to which the assignment relates.” 6. The Taluk Land Board, it is seen, has discarded the copy of the Purchase Certificate produced by the claimant solely for the reason that the Authorised Officer had reported that the order of the Land Tribunal previously passed had been set aside and the case was remanded for fresh consideration by the Appellate Authority. We do not know whether C.R.P.No.520 of 2004 :: 5 :: the report was filed at a time before fresh orders were passed after remand by the Land Tribunal. 7. In the given facts of the case, I find that the claim of the petitioners/legal heirs of the claimant Babu Shetty has to be examined afresh, taking note of the Purchase Certificate issued in respect of the items of properties referred to above in favour of the claimant Babu Shetty. To that limited extent and in respect of the claim canvassed by the petitioners alone, as indicated above, the order of the Taluk Land Board has to be set aside and the case to be remitted for fresh consideration. I do so. 8. I make it clear that with respect to the rest of the order of the Taluk Land Board, there is no challenge. The remission of the case to consider the claim of the petitioners shall not be taken into account for reopening any such issues, other than for fixation of the C.R.P.No.520 of 2004 :: 6 :: land to be surrendered, if the claim of the petitioners is allowed. The Taluk Land Board, Kasaragod is directed to dispose the claim of the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE SK/- //true copy//