IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 87 of 2003() -------------------- TLB.1217/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, TALIPARAMBA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- N.JOB, S/O. JOSEPH, 54 YEARS, NAMBURACKAL HOUSE, P.O.CHUZHALI, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. .V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. M.L.SAJEEVAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.87 of 2003 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9 th day of March, 2010 O R D E R The revision is directed against the proceedings of the Taluk Land Board, Taliparamba dated 13.8.2002 in proceedings No.TLB/1217/73/TBA. The above ceiling proceedings were taken in respect of land owned and possessed by one T.P.Balakrishnan Nair, Taliparamba Taluk. After enquiry, the Taluk Land Board determined an area of 4.48 acres in R.S.No.27 of Chuzhali Village as excess land possessed by the declarant over and above the ceiling limit. The excess land was taken possession by the Tahsildar, Taliparamba on 17.8.1991, and notified for assignment to the landless as agricultural labourer for providing house site. Twelve years later, the present revision petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 85(8) of C.R.P.No.87 of 2003 :: 2 :: the Kerala Land Reforms Act {for short 'the Act'}. in respect of 2.50 acres of land which was taken over as excess land from the declarant as aforesaid. In his claim petition, he contended that the above property was purchased by him under a registered sale deed No.2566/88 of Sub Registrar's office, Sreekandapuram from one Methalapurayil Kannan, who had right over an extent of 14 acres in R.S.No.27 of Chuzhali village under a registered marupattom document of the year 1965. He further contended that the declarant in the proceedings, T.P.Balakrishnan Nair had no right or possession over the property surrendered. The Taluk Land Board conducted an enquiry over the claim petition in accordance with the rules and a report of the authorised officer was also obtained. Pursuant to objections raised by the claimant to that report, a second report was also collected from the authorised officer. After such enquiry and on the basis of the C.R.P.No.87 of 2003 :: 3 :: materials produced, appreciating the materials produced, the Taluk Land Board passed the impugned order rejecting the claim petition. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision under Section 103 of the Act. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/claimant, and also the learned Government Pleader. 3. Assailing the order of the Taluk Land Board, it is contended by the learned counsel for the claimant that the declarant had no right over the property involved in the proceedings. The predecessor of the claimant had been in possession of 14 acres of land as a lessee under a lease on the basis of a registered lease deed of the year 1965 and the claimant had obtained right over 2.5 Acres of land in such holding under a registered sale deed executed in 1988, by the lessee according to the learned counsel. C.R.P.No.87 of 2003 :: 4 :: On the basis of a wrong statement filed by the declarant, the property had been mistakenly included as owned by him and thus determined as excess land of the declarant is the submission of the counsel. The Taluk Land Board has not conducted a proper enquiry over the claim and sufficient opportunity was also not extended to establish his claim is the further submission of the counsel. Reliance was also sought to be placed on some documents which are produced in the revision with a petition for receiving them as additional documents. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submitted that there is no merit in the revision challenging the order passed by the Taluk Land Board contending that the claimant has no right, title or interest over the property which had been taken over as early in 1981 and, ever since, continuing as a Government land. It is submitted that over the Government land, the claimant had managed C.R.P.No.87 of 2003 :: 5 :: to remit basic tax in 1989, for a period covering from 1970-71 to 88-89, after obtaining a registered sale deed from a person who had no right over the property. The transferor of the claimant never claimed right, title or interest over the land taken possession from the declarant as his excess land is highlighted by the Government Pleader to contend that the claim is devoid of any merit and was rightly rejected by the Taluk Land Board. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made with reference to the order impugned in the revision passed by the Taluk Land Board dismissing the claim. Petitioner has claimed right over 2.50 acres of land which admittedly formed part of 4.50 acres determined as excess land to be surrendered by the declarant Sri.T.P.Balakrishnan Nair. The land was taken over after passing orders determining it as excess land of the declarant and ever since it continue C.R.P.No.87 of 2003 :: 6 :: as a Government land. The land had also been notified for assignment to landless agricultural labourers on 17.8.1981, the date of taking possession of the excess land, as seen from the order of the Taluk Land Board. The land was taken over on 17.8.1981. The claimant, it is seen, has not disputed, but practically admitted that the land claimed by him 2.50 Acres formed part of 4.50 acres determined as excess land of declarant. The declarant had no right, title or possession over the land surrendered is her case. So practically, he has conceded the surrender of the land and also the taking over of the entire 4.50 Acres by the State after determination of the excess land. In that backdrop, the case canvassed by him that he had obtained title over such land on the basis of a registered sale deed executed in the year 1988 has to be appreciated. It is seen from the impugned order that till a registered sale deed was taken by the claimant none remitted any C.R.P.No.87 of 2003 :: 7 :: basic tax for the land for considerable period. Basic tax over the land claimed was paid cumulatively for a period over 20 years from 1970-71 onwards in 1989 after the claimant obtained a sale deed in his favour. That circumstance itself looms large as a vitiating factor discrediting the claim canvassed setting up a case that some other person had title over the property which, after taking over, continued as a Government land. There is no merit in the case of the claimant and his claim was rightly and correctly rejected. 5. In a revision against an order passed by any authority under the Act, the scope of enquiry is limited and interference is permissible only if it is shown that the authority concerned erroneously decided or failed to decide any question of law. That has been made clear by sub-section (1) of Section 103 of the Act. No question of law has been raised or C.R.P.No.87 of 2003 :: 8 :: canvassed in the present revision. Taking notice of the interdiction placed by the statute, in the given facts, I find no interference with the order passed by the Taluk Land Board rejecting the claim of the revision petitioner is called for in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Revision is dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy//