IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 844 of 2008(B) --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/10/2008 IN TBA IN TLB.155/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, TALIPARAMBA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------- VANIYAN VALAPPIL BHARGAVI W/O. K.P.RAGHAVAN, KURUMATHUR AMSOM AND DESOM TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SRI.T.P.ELDHOSE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, TALIPARAMBA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA. 3. SHARADA,D/O. C.V.KORAN, RESIDING AT PANNIYOOR AMSOM, POOMANGALAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 4. BALAKRISHNAN,S/O. C.V.KORAN RESIDING AT PANNIYOOR AMSOM, POOMANGALAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 5. YASODA, D/O.C.V.KORAN RESIDING AT PANNIYOOR AMSOM, POOMANGALAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 6. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER (SPECIAL) SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN FOR R 1,2 & 6 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ONTHE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------- C.R.P No.844 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 24th March, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner challenges the order dated 30.8.2008 passed by the Taluk Land Board, Taliparamba. Revision petitioner claims possession over 2 acres and 21 3/4 cents of land comprised in Re.Sy.No.30/2 of Panniyoor amsom. It is stated that her father had obtained the property on tenancy right. It is also stated that her father had obtained purchase certificate in respect of the property as per order in O.A No.9647/76 of the Land Tribunal, Taliparamba. Revision petitioner obtained the property as per Sale deed No.3504/93 of S.R.O. Taliparamba from her father. 2. The petitioner preferred a claim petition under Section 85 (8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act on the basis of the gift deed executed in her favour by her father. She produced certain documents before the Taluk Land Board to establish her claim. She also pointed out that proceedings under 85 (A) of the Act is misconceived because of her possession over the property. In spite of the C.R.P No.844 of 2008 2 above objections and documents produced by her, without considering any of them, the impugned order has been passed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that Sri.C.V Koran taken by the Taluk Land Board as the declarent had nothing to do with the property. Several documents were produced to establish her claim over the property. Without considering the documents produced by the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed. 4. There seems to be considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the materials available, it is seen that the petitioner had definite claim that property did not belong to Sri. C.V.Koran and in fact belong to Sri.Mammad Kunji Haji. She had also produced purchase certificate obtained from her father and assignment deed executed in her favour. It is also significant to note that the claim gets support from the report of the Revenue Inspector. Under these circumstances, the Taluk Land Board was not justified in C.R.P No.844 of 2008 3 declining the relief prayed for by the petitioner. At any rate, the claim made by the revision petitioner has to be considered in the light of the evidence adduced before the Taluk Land Board. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Taluk Land Board for fresh consideration, in accordance with law, taking into consideration the purchase certificate and other documents produced by the petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, as above. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE ma C.R.P No.844 of 2008 4 C.R.P No.844 of 2008 5