IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 162 of 2011() --------------------- TLBB.1/2009 of TALUK LAND BOARD, BADAGARA .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------- M.M. GEORGE, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 50 YEARS, MADATHINA MATTATHIL HOUSE, PALLISSERY, POST THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. KERALA STATE. BY ADVS. SRI.B.KRISHNAN, SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT AND STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, LAND BOARD, VATAKARA - 673 101. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R1 & R2 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER (REVENUE) SMT. SUSHEELA R.BHAT THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2011 ALONG WITH CRP.NO.205 OF 2011 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss CRP.NO.162/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURE: ANNEX.A1: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 18/02/09 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR) KOZHIKODE. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.Nos.162, 205, 229 and 434 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 08th day of December, 2011 ORDER These civil revisions arise from proceeding of the Taluk Land Board, Vadakara (for short, "the TLB”) in L5/TLB(B)1/2009. In respect of 1197.52 Acres the TLB initiated suo moto proceedings under Sec.85(7) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short, "the Act”). The assessee, one Vijayakrishna Varma Raja who claimed to be the present Raja of Ayanchery Kovilakam filed statement based on which the TLB held that 273.93Acres is liable to be surrendered. The said assessee was found entitled to possess 5 standard Acres. He challenged that order in this Court in C.R.P.No.198 of 2010, his main contention being that property belonged to the Kovilakam, there are several members in the Kovilakam who are also entitled to shares in the said properties and that the TLB has initiated proceedings and passed the order without notice to those members of the Kovilakam. The challenge made by the assessee failed for the reason that he had no reason to complain since the TLB had given notice to him and it was after hearing him that the order he challenged in C.R.P.No.198 of 2010 was passed. But, this Court, referring to the contention C.R.P.Nos.162, 205, 229 and 434 of 2011 -: 2 :- raised by the assessee observed in paragraph 5 of the order: “if at all any other person is affected by the impugned order, it is open to him to initiate appropriate proceedings if he is otherwise entitled to do so as provided under law”. I am told that the order in C.R.P.No.198 of 2010 was challenged before the Supreme Court but without success. 2. Based on the observation referred above in the order in C.R.P.No.198 of 2010, some members of the Kovilakam and an assignee from some of them made claims before the TLB under Sec.85(8) of the Act. Those claims were rejected by the TLB by order dated 17.02.2011 without considering the claim of those persons on merit but, observing that the earlier order passed by the TLB has been confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No.198 of 2010. Those persons have challenged the order dated 17.02.2011 in C.R.P.Nos.162, 205, 229 of 2011. 3. C.R.P.No.434 of 2011 is filed by the State aggrieved by the order passed by the TLB on 30.03.2010 granting exemption to several persons on one ground or the other. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners in C.R.P.Nos.162, 205 and 229 of 2011 that the TLB has passed order dated 17.02.2011 without adverting to the claims made by petitioners. It is pointed out by learned counsel that the entire C.R.P.Nos.162, 205, 229 and 434 of 2011 -: 3 :- property belonged to Kovilakam and while so, the Sub Court, Thalassery passed a decree for partition in respect of certain items of properties belonging to the Kovilakam in O.S.No.40 of 1954. But in that suit, property which is the subject matter of proceeding of the TLB was left out from partition. Hence some members of the Kovilakam filed O.S.No.21 of 2003 before the Sub Court, Vatakara for partition of 1197.52Acres and that suit is pending. According to the learned counsel, this Court while disposing of C.R.P.No.198 of 2010 has only considered the challenge made by the assessee, Vijayakrishna Varma Raja and that order cannot affect the claim made by petitioners in C.R.P.Nos.162, 205 and 229 of 2011. It is also pointed out that this Court specifically observed that if any person other than the assessee who filed C.R.P.No.198 of 2010 is affected by the order which was under challenge in that civil revision, it is open to them to initiate appropriate proceedings if they are otherwise entitled to it as provided under law. Learned counsel submits that petitioners above stated are entitled to lodge their claims under Sec.85(8) of the Act. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner in C.R.P.No.162 of 2011 who claims to be an assignee from some members of the Kovilakam (or, all the members as petitioner himself would claim) contend that by the decree for partition in O.S.No.40 of 1954 of C.R.P.Nos.162, 205, 229 and 434 of 2011 -: 4 :- the Sub Court, Thrissur there was a disruption of the joint family and hence members of the Kovilakam took the properties including the left out properties as tenants in common with independent right, title and interest over the left out properties as well. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Sinnammu Amma Vs. Narayanikutty Amma (1957 KLT 521). It is also contended that after the assignment in favour of petitioner, the revenue department was collecting revenue on the land assigned to the petitioner thus recognising the right of petitioner over the said property. 6. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents in C.R.P.Nos.162, 205 and 229 of 2011 and petitioner in C.R.P.No.434 of 2011 contended that the order dated 30.03.2010 passed by the TLB granting exemption to several persons referred to in that order is illegal, as it is done without conducting any proper enquiry. It is also pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that though some of the members of Kovilakam including petitioners in C.R.P.Nos.205 and 229 of 2011 had filed O.P(C).No.351 of 2011, that petition was disposed of by judgment dated 22.03.2011 (Annexure-2 in C.R.P.No.205 of 2011) directing the TLB to dispose of the claims of those petitioners in accordance with the directions contained therein, but without noticing that the claim of petitioners in C.R.P.Nos.162, 205, 229 and 434 of 2011 -: 5 :- C.R.P.Nos.205 and 229 of 2011 had already been disposed of by the TLB as per order dated 17.02.2011 (which again is under challenge in C.R.P.Nos.205 and 229 of 2011). 7. I have gone through Annexure-2, judgment (in C.R.P.No.205 of 2011) in O.P(C).No.351 of 2011. That judgment was delivered on 22.03.2011 where certain directions are issued in the matter of disposal of claims made by petitioners therein. It is not disputed that claim of petitioners in C.R.P.Nos.205 and 229 of 2011 had already been disposed of by the TLB on 17.02.2011 but, I do not find any conflict between the directions contained in the Annexure-2, judgment and the dismissal of claim petitions by order dated 17.02.2011. In view of the manner in which I propose to dispose of C.R.P.Nos.162, 205 and 229 of 2011 it makes no much difference that even before Annexure-2, judgment dated 22.03.2011 the claims had already been disposed of by the order dated 17.02.2011. 8. So far as legality of order of the TLB dated 17.02.2011 is concerned, it is seen from the order that the TLB has not adverted to the merit of claim made by petitioners in C.R.P.Nos.162, 205 and 229 of 2011. The TLB appears to have been under the impression that this Court by order dated 13.09.2010 in C.R.P.No.198 of 2010 has put a seal on the claims that may be preferred by other members of Ayanchery C.R.P.Nos.162, 205, 229 and 434 of 2011 -: 6 :- Kovilakam. It was specifically mentioned in the said order that if any other person is affected by the order challenged in C.R.P.No.198 of 2010 it is open to him to make appropriate claim before the TLB and in view of that observation petitioners in C.R.P.Nos.162, 205 and 229 of 2011 made claims before the TLB. Those claims were required to be decided on its merit. Hence the order dated 17.02.2011 of the TLB disallowing claims made by petitioners in C.R.P.Nos.162, 205 and 229 of 2011 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 9. What remains is the challenge made by the petitioner/State in C.R.P.No.434 of 2011 to the order dated 30.03.2010 whereby exemption was granted to several persons based on enquiries said to be conducted by the TLB. In the said order the TLB states that approved draft statement of the land was served, published and returned before hearing started It is stated that notification in Form No.4 was published in two vernacular dailies on 26.11.2009 and copies were published on the notice board of the village office, taluk office and Collectorate, Kozhikode. It is further stated that special teams were appointed for surveying the land and verification of the documents and statements filed in this case. Report submitted by this Special team were put for detailed examination by Deputy Tahsildar and the TLB. Special camps at village level were also C.R.P.Nos.162, 205, 229 and 434 of 2011 -: 7 :- arranged for clarification and for further documents. The list of persons who according to the TLB are in possession of respective areas mentioned therein and the reason for exemption are also given in the order. It is seen that in the remark column it is stated that some of the members have no previous records to prove their possession while in some other cases, the resurvey number differed from the one mentioned in the document perused. Thus it would appear from the order that exemptions were granted without a close consideration of the claims made and their entitlement to such exemption. Hence the order dated 30.03.2010 to the extent it concerned exemption granted to those persons cannot stand and is liable to be set aside. 10. Learned Government Pleader also brought to my attention certain directions issued by this Court O.P(C).No.351 of 2011 taking note of certain subsequent development. Learned Judge directed as under: “(c) Subject to the final orders passed by the Taluk Land Board and subject to any other proceedings in accordance with law, the extent of 55 acres of land earmarked in Annexure-I, plan as land for BSF can be possessed and enjoyed by BSF. The BSF also would be entitled to make constructions therein. (d) Necessary documents also could be executed by the Government in favour of BSF. C.R.P.Nos.162, 205, 229 and 434 of 2011 -: 8 :- However, if it is found that the land allotted to BSF does not form part of any ceiling areas, appropriate steps shall be taken for acquiring that land under the Land Acquisition Act.” 11. In C.R.P.No.162 of 2011, this Court had granted an interim stay as prayed for. The said above directions in the judgment in O.P(C).No.351 of 2011 was brought to my notice and I modified the order of stay to the effect that the interim order of stay in C.R.P.No.162 of 2011 will stand lifted to the extent it affected the directions (c) and (d) in the judgment in O.P(C). No.351 of 2011 extracted above. 12. Having heard counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader, I am inclined to think that while the TLB decides the respective claims as also the exemption granted to several persons in the order dated 30.03.2010 any decision being taken by the TLB shall be subject to the directions in clauses (c) and (d) of the judgment in O.P(C).No.351 of 2011 referred above. I also make it clear that so far as persons in whose favour exemption was granted as per order dated 30.03.2010 is concerned, if the TLB finds that they are persons interested in the matter they shall be given notice as provided under proviso to sub sec.(7) of Sec.85 of the Act and their claims also shall be heard in the matter. C.R.P.Nos.162, 205, 229 and 434 of 2011 -: 9 :- Resultantly these civil revisions are disposed of as follows: (i) C.R.P.Nos.162, 205 and 229 of 2011 are allowed and orders dated 17.02.2011 to the extent it concerned petitioners therein are set aside. The claims made by petitioners are remitted to the TLB for fresh decision on merit. (ii) C.R.P.No.434 of 2011 is allowed and order dated 30.03.2010 to the extent it concerned exemption granted to the various persons referred to in the list appended to the order is set aside. TLB is directed to conduct fresh enquiry into that matter, if it is satisfied that those persons have an interest in the land after issuing notice to them as provided under proviso to sub Sec.(7) of Sec.85 of the Act. (iii) It is made clear that any order that the TLB may pass, if it finds that claimants are entitled to exemption as prayed for, shall be subject to the directions contained in clauses (c) and (d) in the judgment dated 22.03.2011 in O.P(C).No.351 of 2011. It is made clear that all the contentions that the parties have in the matter could be raised before the TLB. The TLB is directed to expedite its proceedings. (iv) The parties hereto shall appear before the TLB on 15.01.2012. Sd/- (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-