IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 1696 of 2003()
1. SMT.RUGMINI AMMA, W/O.LATE RAVUNNI NAIR,
... Petitioner
2. SRI.SIVADAS, S/O.RAVUNNI NAIR,
3. SMT.V.VIJAYALAKSHMI, D/O.RAVUNNI NAIR,
4. SARASWATHI, D/O.RAVUNNI NAIR,
5. SMT.VALSALA, D/O.RAVUNNI NAIR,
6. SMT.RADHA, D/O.RAVUNNI NAIR,
7. SRI.NARAYANAN, S/O.RAVUNNI NAIR,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED
3. TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD.
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN (1)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN
Dated :18/08/2006
O R D E R
M.RAMACHANDRAN, J
----------------------------
C.R.P. NO. 1696 Of 2003
----------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2006
ORDER
Orders passed in SM2/87 dated 12.06.2003 by the Taluk Land Board,
Palakkad is subjected to challenge in this proceedings. It may not be necessary
to sketch the details starting from the draft orders wherein there was a direction
for surrendering 11.44.50 acres of land by the declarants. Ultimately, the
direction by the Taluk Land Board was that the petitioners were to surender 0.69
acres of land. However the option statement was not acceptable to them since it
had been reported that land so earmarked were not usable. 0.69 acres
thereupon were earmarked, being garden land in Survey No.363/01 of Kongad I
village, for purpose of surrender.
2. Mr. Radhakrishnan appearing for the petitioners submits that in any
case the above direction was unwarranted, and without jurisdiction, even if it is
conceded that there was land which were to be surrendered. According to him it
is the discretion of the land owner to earmark the area to surrender. This
argument is stoutly opposed by the learned Government Pleader who submits
that the very purpose of the act is to take possession of excess land for the
C.R.P. NO. 1696 OF 2003 2
purpose of distributing to landless persons and unusable land will not serve the
purpose. However no provision have been indicated to show that that in the
matter of choosing land, the opinion of the declarants could have been over
reached or there was reserved powers for the authorities, to insist that a
specified area as pointed out required to be surrendered.
3. Mr. Radhakrishnan submits that the order suffered from another error in
respect of an extent of 2.05 acres of land. The argument is that at the relevant
time, the above extent of land was not in the possession of the petitioners. If this
was excluded the decision would have been that there was no surplus land, and
there was no need for the Land Board to suggest that surrender at all was
required. This was in respect of a property ad measuring 2.04 acres.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that the
above was a mistake of facts. The above piece of land was in the possession of
Mr. Sankunni Nair from the year 1951 onwards. The person was the brother of
the petitioner herein. Mr. Radhakrishnan also refers to the observations that
have been made by the Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A.502/1980. It is
pointed out that the Government was a party and the enquiry made by the
Forest Tribunal, that had resulted in the above finding. They, therefore deserve
exclusion, and the basic reason for ordering surrender of the properties in the
C.R.P. NO. 1696 OF 2003 3
present proceedings was misconceived.
Evidently the Land Tribunal has not applied its mind to this piece of
evidence and the binding order of this court. If this position is accepted, the
resultant situation is that the land in possession of petitioners would have been
within the ceiling limits which naturally leads to a position that there was no
liability for them to surrender any land as there was no surplus. Resultantly the
CRP requires to be allowed, and it is declared that the petitioner has no liability
for surrendering any properties. No costs.
M.RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE
RV/
C.R.P. NO. 1696 OF 2003 4