IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 CRP.No. 1097 of 2003() ---------------------- LB.451/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------------------------------ 1. V.PAZHANI @ PAZHANIAPPAN S/O. VELAN, ILLIYANKAD, PERUVEMBA P.O., PALGHAT. 2. V.VELAPPAN, S/O. VELUKUTY, PULINIRAKODE, PERUVEMBA P.O., PALGHAT. 3. V.PAZHANI S/O. VELUKUTTY PULINIRAKODE, PERUVEMBA P.O., PALGHAT. 4. S.KUNCHAN, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, ILLIYANKAD, PERUVEMBA P.O., PALGHAT. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SUNIL SMT.S.CHITHRA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. N.K. THANKACHAN. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 1097 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010. ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 7.1.2003 in L.B. 451 of 1973 by the Taluk Land Board, the claimants before the authority had come up in revision. 2. It appears that ceiling proceedings were initiated against one P.M. Narayanan Namboodiri. When it was found that in the ceiling proceedings, the land possessed by the petitioners was labelled as excess land, they preferred claim petitions before the Taluk Land Board. It is pointed out that they had purchase certificates in relation to the property claimed by them and therefore those items of properties were not excess land in possession of the land owner. The Taluk Land Board rejected their claims. The said order is assailed in this revision petition. 3. The order on the very face of it is unsustainable in law. The petitioners have clearly established that they have C.R.P.1097/2003. 2 purchase certificates in respect of the property claimed by them, which as per Section 72K of the KLR Act is conclusive regarding the right, title and possession. The observation of the Taluk Land Board that there is no evidence to prove that they were put in possession of the land before 1.1.1970 is perverse as no valid lease of agricultural land could have been created after 1.4.1964. There is no objection taken by the land owner in issuing purchase certificates to the petitioners. Their claims are only to be allowed. In the result, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, the four claim petitions are allowed, and it is ordered that those items of properties are not liable to be included in the ceiling case. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb. C.R.P.1097/2003. 3 P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 1097 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORDER 04.01.2010