IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 850 of 2001(E) --------------------------------- SMC.18/1976 of TALUK LAND BOARD, CHANGANACHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ----------------------------- SEBASTIAN MATHEW, S/O. LATE KURUVILA MATHEW, THOOMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VAZHOOR. BY ADV. SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, CHANGANASSERY. 3. THE TAHSILDAR , CHANGANASSERY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== C.R.P. No.850 OF 2001 ===================== Dated this the 14th day of January 2008 O R D E R This civil revision petition is preferred against the order of the Taluk Land Board, Changanassery dated 16.3.2001 whereby the Taluk Land Board directed the father of the present revision petitioner to surrender 26.080 cents of land as excess land. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the revision are stated as follows: The Taluk Land Board initiated suo motu ceiling case against the father of the revision petitioner as SMC-18/76. The total land held by the said person was fixed as 16.25 acres. The assessee then filed a statement before the Spl.Deputy Tahsildar, Taluk Land Board holding that 10 acres of land are rubber plantation, 5 acres and 64 cents of land had been gifted by the assessee to his son in 1965 and another 1 acre on 30.3.1970 and further there is no excess land to be surrendered. The Taluk Land Board in its initial proceeding found that after deducting rubber plantation, gift, etc. there is no land for the assessee to surrender and therefore dropped the ceiling case. Subsequently the Taluk Land Board in the light of Section 85(9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act CRP No.850 of 2001 -:2:- reopened the matter. A perusal of the file would reveal that a proceeding to reopen was initiated as early as 30.10.1990, but the notice, etc. had been issued much later thereafter. The learned Government Pleader has brought to my notice a decision of this Court reported in Subramania Mudaliar v. Taluk Land Board(1986 KLT 338). A learned Judge of this Court held that it may not be correct to conclude that not only steps should be initiated but should be closed within 3 years appears to be not the legislative intention. 2. Whatever it may be, the Taluk Land Board held that the gift of the year 1965 was in favour of the assessee therein from his father and it was not a gift deed executed by the assessee in favour of his son. A photocopy of the document is seen in the Land Board's file. The next question is regarding rubber plantation. The Taluk Land Board most probably is guided by a recital in the 1965 document that 2.70 acres of land are replanted and that does not mean that the other lands were lying as barren and they were not rubber plantation. Therefore such an approach is erroneous. Similarly, the Land Board has also to consider the fact that the assessee having two members in the family is entitled to hold 10 standard acres of land. However, it shall not be less that 12 ordinary acres or more than 15 ordinary acres. When 10 standard acres is equivalent to more than 12 standard acres is also a fact that has to be taken into consideration and CRP No.850 of 2001 -:3:- calculated and since the land here ordered to be surrendered is only 26 cents of land, the Land Board may consider that aspect as well. The Land Board further did not consider the objection of the assessee that considerable extent of land had been surrendered for the formation of a road as early as in 1960. A perusal of the Land Board's file itself would reveal that there is a certificate issued by the Officer that land is taken for the purpose of the road. When the Land Board reopens the matter, it is inevitable for the Land Board to consider that aspect also and if the assessee does not have any right or possession over the land much prior to 1.4.1964, it may not be proper to take that area into consideration for fixing the ceiling limit of the assessee and therefore it is also a point that the Land Board has to consider. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Taluk Land Board. Therefore, the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Land Board for consideration of the following points:(1)The Taluk Land Board shall consider and give an opportunity to the petitioner to prove the actual extent of land, i.e. covered by the rubber estate, which is entitled to exemption as on 1.4.1964.(2) The Taluk Land Board shall find out whether the assessee's entitlement to hold 10 standard acres will come above 12 ordinary acres and below 15 ordinary acres which he is entitled to hold. (3) The Taluk Land Board also CRP No.850 of 2001 -:4:- shall consider whether the portion of the property alleged to be taken for the purpose of the formation of a road was in existence prior to 1.4.1964 and if it is so to exclude it from the purview of computing the total extent of land to be possessed by the assessee for the purpose of Section 82 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. On consideration of these points, there shall be a final determination of the case. The Land Board shall issue notice fixing the date of hearing of the case. With these observations, the civil revision petition is disposed of. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-