IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 843 of 2008() -------------------------------- TLB.155/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, TALIPARAMBA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): CLAIMANT NO.2 -------------------------------- ASLAKANDY MOOSAN S/O.MUHAMMED, KURUMATHUR AMSOM AND DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SMT.O.K.SANTHA RESPONDENT(S): L.RS. OF DECLARANT -------------------------- 1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, TALIPARAMBA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, TALIPARAMBA. 3. SHARADA, D/O. C.V.KORAN, RESIDING AT PANNIYOOR AMSOM POOMANGALAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 4. BALAKRISHNA,S/O.C.V.KORAN, RESIDING AT PANNIYOOR AMSOM POOMANGALAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 5. YASODA,D/O. C.V.KORAN, RESIDING AT PANNIYOOR AMSOM POOMANGALAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 6. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 & R6 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.M.L.SAJEEVAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 843 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010. ORDER In this revision petition, petitioner assails the order dated 30.8.2008 by the Taluk Land Board, Taliparamba. Ceiling proceedings were initiated against the declarant, Sri.V.Koran, who is no more. His legal representatives were respondents 3 to 5. It is stated that Koran had gifted 7.50 ares each to his children, Sharada, Balakrishnan and Yesodha as per gift deeds dated 27.3.1970. The gifts fall within the ambit of Section 84(1A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and are therefore safe. The petitioner, who owns 6.75 acres traced his title to 5 acres to Balakrishnan, which devolved on him by successive assignment. As far as the 2 acres are concerned, it belonged to one Mani, who had purchased it from the declarant. Mani converted it into a plantation and gifted the same to his son. CRP. 843/2008. 2 Petitioner obtained 1.79 acres from the son of Mani as per a sale deed. 2. The Taluk Land Board considered his case and held that the deeds executed by the declarant including the gift deeds are invalid and therefore the petitioner does not get any right under the deed in his favour by Balakrishnan. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the order of the Taluk Land Board is clearly unsustainable and it has been found by this court that the gift deed in favour of Balakrishnan is valid and the matter on an earlier occasion had been remanded to the Taluk Land Board for re-determining the ceiling area of the declarant. It is therefore claimed that based on the assignment deed from Balakrishnan the claim had to be considered and that has not been done. Therefore the order is unsustainable in law. 4. Learned Government Pleader was unable to support the impugned order. CRP. 843/2008. 3 5. It needs to be noticed that the gift deeds in favour of the children come under the purview of Section 84 (1A) of the KLR Act. If that be so, the area covered by the gift deeds is to be excluded from the account of the declarant. It may be noticed that the gift deed in favour of Balakrishnan has been upheld by this court on an earlier occasion. It is also stated that the petitioner obtained purchase certificate in respect of the same. If that be so, going by Section 72K that is conclusive. It is this aspect that had to be considered by the Taluk Land Board. It is not necessary to verify the claims made by the petitioner regarding the acquisitions. If as a matter of fact the gift deed in favour of Balakrishnan is valid as has been held by this court on an earlier occasion, it is not possible to understand how the assignment in favour of the petitioner could be ignored. 6. In short the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Land Board. CRP. 843/2008. 4 The impugned order as far as the petitioner is concerned is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Taluk Land Board for fresh determination in accordance with law and in the light of what has been sated above. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.