IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 17128 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. P.MAHALAKSHMI, D/O.LATE MADHAVAN NAIR, PAZHEDTHU HOUSE, VADAKKETHARA VILLAGE, P.O.PAZHAYANNUR, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. RAJAKUMARAN, S/O.LATE MADHAVAN NAIR, PAZHEDTHU HOUSE, VADAKKETHARA VILLAGE, P.O.PAZHAYANNUR, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. AMMALU AMMA, W/O.LATE MADHAVAN NAIR, PAZHEDTHU HOUSE, VADAKKETHARA VILLAGE, P.O.PAZHAYANNUR, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 3. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, THALAPPILLY COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, P.O.WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKETHARA VILLAGE, P.O.PAZHAYANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC : 17128/08 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE TALUK LAND BOARD, TALAPILLY TALUK. EXT.P2 : TRUE COY OF THE MEMORANDUM ON CRP NO.1334/1983. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THEORDER IN CRP NO.1334/1983. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 17128 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order of the 2nd respondent District Collector, Thrissur whereby certain lands alleged to be in possession of the petitioner has been slated for assignment to landless persons under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. According to the petitioners, the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest and after his death the petitioners are in possession of an extent of 1.91 acres in Survey No.49/1 (Resurvey No.458/1) in Vadakkethala Village, Pazhayannur, Thrissur District. The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order, whereby that land is proposed to be assigned to landless persons, on the ground that in view of introduction of Section 7 E in the Kerala Land Reforms Act by Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005, the petitioner is a tenant eligible for the benefit of that Section and therefore the land in the possession of the petitioners cannot be assigned to anybody else. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 5, wherein it is stated that the land in question formed part of WPC :17128/08 -:2:- excess lands to be taken over from the legal heirs of late P.V.Narayana Iyyer, who were the declarants in land ceiling proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. According to them, the petitioners have no right to that land and therefore the respondents are entitled to take over the land as excess land of the declarants and distribute it to landless persons. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. In view of Exts.P1 and P2, petitioners themselves agree that their claim that tenancy under the Kerala Land Reforms Act has been repelled by this Court and that judgment has become final. The contention of the petitioners is only that in view of the new Section 7E in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, they are deemed tenants and therefore they have all the rights of a tenant under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, including fixity of tenure. Therefore what I have to consider is whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of Section 7E. The said Section reads thus: “7E. Certain persons who acquired lands to be deemed tenants.- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 74 or section 84 or in any other provisions of this Act, or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract, custom or usage, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal WPC :17128/08 -:3:- or other authority, a person who at the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms(Amendment) Act, 2005, is in possession of any land, not exceeding four hectares in extent, acquired by him or his predecessor-in-interest by way of purchase or otherwise on payment of consideration from any person holding land in excess of the ceiling area; during the period between the date of the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964) and the date of commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005, shall be deemed to be a tenant.” 4. In order for the petitioners to be eligible for the benefits of the said Section, the petitioners have to prove that they were in possession of the land at the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005, and the lands were acquired by them or their predecessor-in-interest by way of purchase or otherwise on payment of consideration from any person, holding land in excess of the cealing area, during the period between the date of commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and the date of commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms(Amendment)Act, 2005. Petitioners claim to be in possession, but they have no case that they had purchased the land on payment of consideration from a person holding the land in excess of the ceiling area. The only contention now raised is that the petitioners are paying rent. That is WPC :17128/08 -:4:- not what is contemplated under Section 7E. In order to come within the purview of Section 7 E, the petitioners have also to prove that they acquired the land by way of purchase or otherwise on payment of consideration from any person holding the land in excess of ceiling area. The petitioners have not produced any shred of evidence to prove the same. That being so, the petitioners are clearly not eligible for the benefit of Section 7 E. Therefore there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb