IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 CRP.No. 645 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25/06/2008 IN TBA&TLB105/73/TBA IN TLB.536/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, TALIPARAMBA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS: -------------------------------- 1. P. MEENAKSHI, AGED 80, W/O. LATE A. ACHUTHAN, AYADATHIL HOUSE, KADALAYI, KANNUR.P.O. 2. A.P. SUSHENAN, AGED 52, S/O. LATE ACHUTHAN, MANCHAPPAN VALAPPIL HOUSE, KADALAYI.P.O, KANNUR. 3. A.P. HARITHAN, AGED 50, S/O. LATE ACHUTHAN, SEVAGRAM, KADALAYI.P.O, KANNUR. 4. A.P. SUSRUTHAN, AGED 46, S/O. LATE ACHUTHAN, AYADATHIL HOUSE, KADALAYI.P.O, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TALUK LAND BORAD, TALIPARAMBA. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 5. FR.K.T. MATHEW, VICAR, ST. JOHN'S CHURCH, KUTTUR AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. CRP.645/08 6. VCEENGAYIL LEELAVATHI AMMA, D/O. LAKSHMI AMMA, KUTTOOR AMSOM DESOM, KUTTOOR.P.O, M.M. BAZAR VIA. 7. VEENGAYIL SAROJINI AMMA, D/O. LAKSHMI AMMA, RESIDING -DO- ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL FOR R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A.NO.567/09 IN CRP.NO.645/08 DISMISSED. 15.1.2010 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.645 OF 2008 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010 O R D E R The revision is directed against the proceedings of the Taluk Land Board, Taliparamba dated 25.6.2008 in TLB 536/73/TBA and TLB 105/73/TBA. Petitioners claim to be the legal representatives of the Managing Director of a company. That Managing Director had filed an application under Section 85 (8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act claiming right over the entire extent of excess land received from the possession of two assesees, namely Smt.Vangayil Leelavathy amma and Smt.Vangayil Lakzhmi amma in the ceiling proceedings TLB 105/73 and TLB 536/73 respectively. In the above proceedings, surplus land measuring 56 acres and 53 cents was taken over on 24.1.1976 and 4 acres and 34 ¼ cents on 27.5.1976 by the Tahsildar, Thaliparamba. In the claim petition, it was contended under a registered deed the company had obtained title and possession over 175.14 acres of land in 1958, and it comprised of the land taken possession CRP.645/08 2 in the ceiling proceedings indicated above. The claim petition was filed on 26.9.1995 nearly 19 years after the land was resumed as surplus land of the above mentioned declarants. Pending the claim petitions before the Taluk Land Board, the claimants had filed an original petition before this Court and got an order directing the Board to consider his application after issuing notice to all interested parties. That judgment was challenged in writ appeal by the present 5th respondent, who had also set up a claim over 5 acres of land over the land received by the Board as excess land from the declarants. That writ appeal was disposed directing issue of notice to the appellant (present 5th respondent in the writ petition) while considering the claim petition of the present petitioners. The Taluk Land Board, after hearing both sides, taking note that the claimant even on his own admission an excess holder had not filed a ceiling return under Section 85A of the KLR Act. It also noticed that possession of the land claimed had been taken over as early on 24.1.1976 and 27.5.1976, and ever since, it is under the management of the revenue department. The claim petition under Sections 85 (8) of the KLR Act was CRP.645/08 3 not filed within sixty days of the final order of the Taluk Land Board was also considered along with the aforesaid circumstances to conclude that there is no merit in the claim raised challenging that order. The revision has been filed by the legal heirs of the claimant under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 2. I heard the leaned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader and also the counsel for the 5th respondent. Relying on Krishnan v. Taluk Land Board, Vaikom (1979 KLT 209), the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the claim petition need be filed within sixty days of the knowledge of the order sought to be set aside, and so much so, the Taluk Land Board was went wrong in dismissing the claim for the reason that it has been filed after nineteen years. Petitioners got knowledge of the previous proceedings only within the period of two months prior to the filing of the claim petition is the case canvassed by the counsel to contend that the claim petition is maintainable. Claim had been set up by the predecessor of the present CRP.645/08 4 petitioners as if the land belonged to a company and that he was its Managing Director. How the petitioners, the legal heirs of the managing director, could prosecute the claim for and on behalf of the company remain unexplained. According to the counsel, subsequently, a firm had been registered and the petitioners are partners. In the absence of winding up of the company and its assets later taken over by the firm, even if any firm had been constituted with the petitioners as members, they cannot set up any right over the property of the company. Further more, the company has claimed an extent of 175 acres to set forth a case that the land resumed in the proceedings form part thereof. No return was filed by the company as an excess land holder under Section 85A of the KLR Act. The land under the ceiling proceedings had been taken possession of by the Revenue Department 19 years prior to the filing of the claim petition is yet another circumstance that there is no merit in the claim belatedly filed and challenges raised against the orders passed by the authorities under the Land Reforms Act. Under Section 103 of the KLR Act interference with an order passed by such an authority is CRP.645/08 5 permissible only where it is shown that the authority has either decided, or failed to decide, any question of law. No such question of law has been raised and canvassed in the present revision to impeach the correctness of the decision rendered by the Taluk Land Board. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp