IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 844 of 2008()
1. VANIYAN VALAPPIL BHARGAVI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, TALIPARAMBA
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSDILDAR, TALIPARAMBA.
3. SHARADA,D/O. C.V.KORAN,
4. BALAKRISHNAN,S/O. C.V.KORAN
5. YASODA, D/O.C.V.KORAN
6. STATE OF KERALA
For Petitioner :SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :24/03/2010
O R D E R
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
-------------------------
C.R.P No.844 of 2008
--------------------------
Dated this the 24th March, 2010
O R D E R
Petitioner challenges the order dated 30.8.2008
passed by the Taluk Land Board, Taliparamba. Revision
petitioner claims possession over 2 acres and 21 3/4 cents
of land comprised in Re.Sy.No.30/2 of Panniyoor amsom.
It is stated that her father had obtained the property on
tenancy right. It is also stated that her father had obtained
purchase certificate in respect of the property as per
order in O.A No.9647/76 of the Land Tribunal,
Taliparamba. Revision petitioner obtained the property as
per Sale deed No.3504/93 of S.R.O. Taliparamba from her
father.
2. The petitioner preferred a claim petition under
Section 85 (8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act on the basis
of the gift deed executed in her favour by her father. She
produced certain documents before the Taluk Land Board
to establish her claim. She also pointed out that
proceedings under 85 (A) of the Act is misconceived
because of her possession over the property. In spite of the
C.R.P No.844 of 2008
2
above objections and documents produced by her, without
considering any of them, the impugned order has been
passed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
pointed out that Sri.C.V Koran taken by the Taluk Land
Board as the declarent had nothing to do with the
property. Several documents were produced to establish
her claim over the property. Without considering the
documents produced by the petitioner, the impugned order
has been passed.
4. There seems to be considerable force in the
submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
From the materials available, it is seen that the petitioner
had definite claim that property did not belong to Sri.
C.V.Koran and in fact belong to Sri.Mammad Kunji Haji.
She had also produced purchase certificate obtained from
her father and assignment deed executed in her favour. It
is also significant to note that the claim gets support from
the report of the Revenue Inspector. Under these
circumstances, the Taluk Land Board was not justified in
C.R.P No.844 of 2008
3
declining the relief prayed for by the petitioner. At any
rate, the claim made by the revision petitioner has to be
considered in the light of the evidence adduced before the
Taluk Land Board.
In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the
matter is remitted to the Taluk Land Board for fresh
consideration, in accordance with law, taking into
consideration the purchase certificate and other documents
produced by the petitioner.
The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, as above.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
ma
C.R.P No.844 of 2008
4
C.R.P No.844 of 2008
5