IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 315 of 1997(F) ---------------------- (TLB.1129/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, HOSDRUG) REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI S. DILEEP. RESPONDENT/DECLARANT: --------------------------------------------- E. GOPINATHAN, B2, TEJAL APARTMENT, KAHJEEN CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY, AKOTAROD, BARODA – 390 020. BY ADV. SMT. A. C. VIDHYA THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ................................................................................... C.R.P. No. 315 OF 1997 ................................................................................... Dated this the 13th February, 2008 O R D E R As per order dated 12.07.1976 in Ceiling Case No.1129 of 1973, the Taluk Land Board held that the declarant is not liable to surrender any excess land. The proceedings were dropped by the Taluk Land Board. The proceedings were dropped on the basis of the report dated 28.03.1976 submitted by the authorised officer (Special Deputy Tahsildar) that the property owned by the declarant in R.S. No. 193 of Maloth Village measuring 32.17 acres ( being 1/3 share of 96.50 acres, as belonging to him as per Arbitration award in O.S.No. 6 of 1965 of District Court, Thalassery) have been in the possession of various tenants and trespassers and as such they are not available for being taken as surplus land from the declarant. 2. Proceedings under Section 85(9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act were initiated and the order dated 12.07.1976 was reviewed. On 10.06.1995, the Special Deputy Tahsildar submitted a report stating that an extent of 32.17 acres of land is in possession and enjoyment of various tenants. The details of 15 tenants and the number of cases under which they obtained purchase certificate and the extent possessed by them were also shown in the report. Nothing is mentioned in the report about the verification of any of the documents. Copies of the purchase certificates are also not available for verification. It is true that the report submitted by the authorised officer is evidence in the case. The Taluk Land Board relied on the report submitted by the authorised officer and held that there is no surplus land to be surrendered. The order reads as follows: C.R.P. No. 315 OF 1997 2 “This is a ceiling case reopened U/Sec. 85/9A of the KLR Act. A further verification report has been obtained from the SDT (LR) Hosdurg. On the basis of report of the Authorised Officer, the TLB held that there is no surplus land to be surrendered further in this case. Further action is therefore dropped.” 3. When it is shown that the declarant owns certain extent of land as on 01.01.1970 and it exceeds the ceiling limit, it is for the declarant to establish that he is not liable to surrender any excess land because the land is an exempted category or that it is held and possessed by cultivating tenants or for any other reason as recognised under the Act. In a case where the declarant fails to prove the same, but at the same time clinching evidence is available to establish that the declarant was not in possession of the land as on 01.01.1970 and that the actual persons in possession have a right to possess it as cultivating tenants, the Taluk Land Board would be justified in deleting that much extent of land. The Taluk Land Board could also issue notice to persons who claimed tenancy right, directing them to establish their cases of tenancy. Several methods are available to arrive at a finding as to whether the declarant is in possession of excess land. The Taluk Land Board has not resorted to any of those methods, but has simply accepted the report of the authorised officer. The report of the authorised officer does not contain the necessary details to arrive at a conclusion as to who created the tenancy, when, whether there is any document evidencing tenancy, whether the declarant was a party to the Land Tribunal proceedings etc. There is complete dearth of evidence in the case. The Taluk Land Board was not justified in closing the proceedings in the manner in which it was done. C.R.P. No. 315 OF 1997 3 For the aforesaid reasons, the order passed by the Taluk Land Board is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh disposal, in accordance with law and in the manner indicated above. No order as to costs. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk C.R.P. No. 315 OF 1997 4 K.T. SANKARAN, J. ........................................................ C.R.P. No. 315 OF 1997 ......................................................... Dated this the 13th February, 2008 O R D E R