IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 CRP.No. 96 of 2005() -------------------- LB.813/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: CLAIMANT: --------------------------- KUNCHUKUTTAN, S/O. LATE APPU, PALLATHAMPULLY, THATTAMANGALAM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SHYSON P. MANGUZHA - FOR R1 & R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NO. 260 OF 2005 IN C.R.P. NO. 96 OF 2005. DISMISSED 11.7.2008 Sd/-(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 96 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008 O R D E R The revision petitioner is the claimant in L.B. No.813/73 on the file of the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad. It is submitted by the revision petitioner that an extent of 0.75 acres of land in Survey No.729 of Thattamangalam Village, Chittur Taluk is a tank which originally belonged to one Neelakanta Iyer of Kalpathy. He further contended that the said property along with other properties were obtained on lease from the jenmi by his ancestors. The Land Tribunal issued purchase certificate in the name of the petitioner's niece in O.A. No.1103 of of 1975. Subsequently, the said property changed hands and was purchased by the wife of the revision petitioner. According to the revision petitioner, his wife is the successor-in-interest of the cultivating tenant and, therefore, the property in question cannot be included in the account of the assessee. 2. The Taluk Land Board in its proceedings dated 30.3.2004 directed the declarant Ananthanarayana Iyer to surrender125.34.67 acres of land being held in excess of the ceiling limit. In the said order, the claim of the revision petitioner was also considered. It is stated in the C.R.P. NO.96/2005 2 order that as per the report of the authorised officer, Smt. Bhanumathy, wife of the revision petitioner was in possession of 0.75 acres of land comprised in Survey No.729 of Thattamangalam Village since 1981 which she had purchased as per document No.769/81. The authorised officer also reported that the revision petitioner had not produced sufficient evidence to show that the land in question was in his possession or in the possession of his predecessor. Hence, the Taluk Land Board rejected the claim of the revision petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that 0.75 acres of land in Survey No.729 is the subject matter of O.A. No.1103 of of 1975 and that in the said proceedings purchase certificate was issued in the name of the revision petitionere's niece and the same was produced before the Taluk Land Board. Counsel further submitted that subsequently the tenant sold the property to one Ananthanarayana Iyer from whom the property was purchased by the wife of the revision petitioner as per Document No.1875/91. According to the learned counsel, the said document was also produced before the Taluk Land Board. But the Taluk Land Board without considering the said document simply accepted the report of the authorised officer and rejected the claim of the revision petitioner. C.R.P. NO.96/2005 3 4. If the property in question is the subject matter of O.A. No. 1103 of of 1975 and the wife of the revision petitioner purchased the property from the cultivating tenant, the Taluk Land Board cannot include the said property in the account of the assessee. The wife of the revision petitioner being the purchaser of the property from the successor-in-interest of the cultivating tenant, she is entitled to claim the property by virtue of the document. The revision petitioner being the husband of Smt. Bhanumathy who is in possession of the property, Bhanumathy also should have been made an applicant in this proceeding. Hence, the revision petitioner is permitted to implead his wife as the second petitioner in the 85(8) petition. The Taluk Land Board is directed to reconsider the question after impleading the wife of the revision petitioner. The order under challenge in respect of 0.75 acres of land is set aside. The Taluk Land Board shall consider the matter on merits and pass a revised order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C.R.P. NO.96/2005 4 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P. NO. 96/2005 O R D E R 11th July, 2008