IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932 CRP.No. 939 of 2005() -------------------------------- SM.849/1976 of TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): -------------------------------- ARAVINDAKSHAN, S/O. LATE MUTHU, KIZHAKKEPURA, KALLEKKAD P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN-678 015. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN, PALAKKAD. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED. 4. RUGMINI, W/O. LATE MUTHU, RESIDING AT KALLEKAD, PALAKKAD *ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 7.6.06 IN IA. NO.696/2006. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN ADDL. R4 BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/10/2010, ALONG WITH CRP NO. 1203 OF 2005 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of October, 2010 ORDER The common revision petitioner in these revision petitions is one Aravindakshan who is the adopted son of one Muthu and his wife Rugmini. In C.R.P.No.939/2005 Aravindakshan challenges the order dated 18.8.2005 in SM.849/76 passed by the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad. In C.R.P.No.1203/2005, Aravindakshan challenges an order dated 9.2.2000 in the said proceedings passed by the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad. 2. The facts leading to the impugned orders can be summarised as follows:- SM 849/76 was the ceiling case of Muthu the father of Aravindakshan referred to above. This case had a checkered career. Originally, the Taluk Land Board disposed of the case as per final order dated 10.3.1976. There was a revision filed by Muthu as C.R.P.No.1653/1976 before this Court. This Court disposed of the said C.R.P on 15.3.1978. The Taluk Land C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005 : 2 : Board, Palakkad then passed final orders on 6.9.1978. There was a writ petition filed before this Court as O.P.No.3856/1978 which was disposed of on 17.10.1980. There was a partition suit before the Sub Court, Palakkad as O.S.No.366/1978 involving the revision petitioner. After the decisions of the Civil Court, the Taluk Land Board again passed a final order dated 24.9.1982 excluding certain properties said to have been allotted to the revision petitioner Aravindakshan in the partition and excluding certain extent of land from the account of Muthu, the assessee who was the foster father of Aravindakshan. Again there was C.R.P. No.2861/1982 before this Court. The said revision was disposed of by this Court on 31.7.1987. The Taluk Land Board again passed final orders on 13.10.1987 against which C.R.P.No.1850/1987 was filed before this Court. The said C.R.P was disposed of on 22.8.1989. Thereafter, as per final order dated 20.4.1993, the Taluk Land Board held that the total extent of land held by the assessee Muthu C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005 : 3 : was 26.25 acres. After deducting 10.98 acres being the half share of the properties covered by the decree in the partition suit allotted to Aravindakshan, the Taluk Land Board held that the total extent of land held by the assessee Muthu was 15.67 acres from which one acre qualified for exemption under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Another extent of 42 cents was excluded as land in the possession of others. The ceiling area applicable to the family consisting of two members was found to be 12 acres. After excluding the 1 acre and 42 cents referred to above, the Taluk Land Board directed the family of Muthu to surrender 2.25 acres. In the meanwhile, Muthu, the assessee died on 4.5.1990. C.R.P.No.1881/1993 was filed by Rugmini, the widow of Muthu challenging the final order dated 20.4.1993. As per order dated 29.10.1999, this Court partly allowed the revision holding that the total extent of land held by the family after deducting 10.98 acres being the half share allotted to Aravindakshan in the partition suit, was 15.27 C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005 : 4 : and not 15.67 as was wrongly stated in the final order dated 20.4.1993. Accordingly, this Court held that the balance extent to be surrendered was not 2.25 acres (as wrongly mentioned in the final order), but it was only 1.85 acres. This Court granted two weeks time to Rugmini, the revision petitioner therein to exercise her option before the Taluk Land Board. The said period of two weeks was further extended by another two weeks as per order dated 22.11.1999 in C.M.P.No.5118/1999 in C.R.P.No.1881/1993. In spite of the extension granted to Rugmini, she did not exercise any fresh option with regard to the land to be surrendered. Aravindakshan, the revision petitioner gave an option on 18.11.1999 which was, however, rejected by the Taluk Land Board on 9.2.2000 which is the order impugned in C.R.P.No.1203/2005. In the said final order dated 9.2.2000, the Taluk Land Board fixed the extent and identity of the 1.85 acres of land to be surrendered by the family as follows:- C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005 : 5 : Village Sy.No. Extent Classification A. Cents Pirayiri 12/1 0.07 OD 87/9A 0.23 OD 16/7C 0.40 OD 4/1B 0.17 SCW 87/9A 0.37 OD 4/29A 0.04 OD 4/29B 0.05 OD 4/29D 0.52 OD --------------- Total 1.85 ======= The Taluk Land Board while passing the order dated 9.2.2000 had taken the view that Aravindakshan had no locus standi to file an application for re-option under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. On 11.4.2005, Aravindakshan filed another application under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act before the Taluk Land Board requesting for change of the identity of the land which had already been taken possession of by C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005 : 6 : the Government. The said application was rejected as per order dated 18.8.2005. Pursuant to the order dated 9.2.2000 passed by the Taluk Land Board, 1.85 acres of land detailed above were taken possession of by the Tahsildar. Thereupon, Aravindakshan filed a contempt petition as C.O.C.No.245/2006 before this Court alleging that possession was taken in violation of the order of stay granted in C.R.P.No.939/2005. In the contempt proceedings it was contented on behalf of the State that the property which was taken possession of was assigned to 19 agriculturist as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rule 1970 (hereafter referred to as the “Ceiling Rules”). However, pursuant to the order dated 14.6.2006 passed by this Court in the contempt petition, the Government cancelled the assignments. The resultant position was that 1.85 acres of land the identity of which was fixed as per the order dated 9.2.2000 still remains to be the land ordered to be surrendered by Rugmini, the widow of Muthu. In the contempt petition, as per order C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005 : 7 : dated 14.6.2006 this Court had directed the State to restore the possession of the aforesaid 1.85 acres of land to Aravindakshan, the common petitioner herein. On 19.8.2009 this Court passed an interim common order in both these revisions noting the contentions of the revision petitioner that the 1.85 acres which were claimed to have been taken possession of by the Tahsildar was not after complying with the procedure laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Govinda Pillai v. Taluk Land Board 1991 (2) KLT 880. This Court also took note of the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner had no locus standi under section 85(8) of the KLR Act to submit further option regarding surrender of property and that opportunity was given by this Court to exercise a further option only to Rugmini while disposing of C.R.P.No.1881/1993 and she did not exercise the option within the time granted by this Court and therefore the land was taken possession of and assigned to strangers and it was only in deference to the order passed by this C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005 : 8 : Court that the Government cancelled the assignments and resumed the property back. 3. After hearing both sides at length this Court granting one more opportunity to the mother and son namely Rugmini and Aravindakshan to file a joint option statement before this Court with copy to the Government Pleader regarding the 1.85 acres to be surrendered to the Government. In the meanwhile Rugmini, foster mother of the petitioner died on 18.6.2009. On 6.9.2009, the petitioner filed an option statement offering to surrender 1.85 acres comprising in 5 different parts of land as follows:- 1. Sy.No.87/9A (R.S.No.197/4) - 0.60 cents (37 + 23) 2. Sy.No.16/7C (R.S.No.223/14) - 0.40 cents 3. Sy.No.4/29D (R.S.No.234/2) - 0.55 cents 4. Sy.No.13/1 (R.S.No.234/2) - 0.14 cents 5. Sy.No.53/3 (R.S.No.210/6) - 0.16 cents ---------------- Total 1.85 Acres ========= C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005 : 9 : 4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that while three of the items comprised in Sy.Nos.4/29D, 13/1 and 53/3 are in the possession of the petitioner, two items comprised in Sy.Nos.87/9A and 16/7C are not in the possession of the petitioner. Those two items which are not in the possession of the petitioner cannot be permitted to be surrendered to the Government. With regard to the three items which are in the possession of the petitioner also they are not suitable to be surrendered to the State and the Taluk Land Board may be directed to consider the fresh option now made by the petitioner. 5. In the light of the dispute as aforesaid, I consider it expedient to direct the Taluk Land Board to go into the question regarding the feasibility of surrendering the 5 items of properties mentioned in the option statement dated 6.9.2009 filed by the petitioner. It is needless to say that if all the above items have been put in the account of Muthu, the assessee, the Taluk Land C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005 : 10 : Board can refuse to accept the option given by the petitioner only on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 85(6) of the KLR Act. 6. The Taluk Land Board shall consider whether any of the aforesaid five items contained in the option statement dated 6.9.2009 filed by the petitioner before this Court has already been included in the final order impugned in the proceedings. The Taluk Land Board shall take into account the same also while considering the acceptability of the option. In case the Taluk Land Board does not accept the aforesaid option either wholly or in part it shall give the petitioner one more opportunity to exercise fresh option so as to enable him to surrender a total of 1.85 acres. The matter is accordingly remitted to the Taluk Land Board for the aforementioned purposes. These C.R.Ps are disposed of accordingly. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE dmb