High Court Kerala High Court

Arakkal Manual vs The Taluk Land Board on 27 February, 2008

Kerala High Court
Arakkal Manual vs The Taluk Land Board on 27 February, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP No. 280 of 2003()


1. ARAKKAL MANUAL
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ARAKKAL THOMAS
3. ARAKKAL CYRLAC.

                        Vs



1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, HOSDURG,
                       ...       Respondent

2. TAHSILDAR, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS

4. DAKSHAYANI AMMA, W/O. O.T.K.NAMBIAR,

5. O.T.K.NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT CHANDRAPURAM,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.S.BABU

                For Respondent  :SMT PREETHY KARUNAKARAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR

 Dated :27/02/2008

 O R D E R
                                 K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J.

                          -------------------------------------------------

                                       R.P.No.280 of 2003

                          -------------------------------------------------

                       Dated, this  the  27th day of February, 2008


                                              ORDER

The grievance of the petitioners is that while extracting the pleadings I have

made certain mistakes especially in the devolution of right. In my order I had

stated that –

“…………Their further case is that Mani Amma

sold the property to one Kunhirama Poduval in the

year 1987 and from him Sri Manual purchased 3 acres

Sri Thomas 2 acres and Cyriac 3 acres. It is also their

case that Karunakaran Nambiar and his wife

Dakshayani Amma have no right or possession over

that land and they are the absolute owners of land.

The Taluk Land Board accepted the case of Sri

Mammad and others in respect of 7 acres . ………….”

According to the petitioners that statement is not correct. It is submitted that Mani

Ammasold 3 acres to Kunhirama Poduval who in turn sold that property to first

petitioner. It is also stated that the statement that the entire property was sold by

Mani Amma to Kunhirama Poduval is not correct. There was no finding by this

Court regarding the devolution of right. What was stated above was only by

repeating the arguments made before the court. Taluk Land Board will have to

consider the claim put forward by each claimants on the basis of the pleadings and

evidence adduced before it. I make it clear that my observations regarding the

pleadings and averments cannot be considered as a finding.

RP No.280/2003 2

With the above observation, Review Petition is closed.

K. PADMANABHAN NAIR,

JUDGE.

cks

RP No.280/2003 3

K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.

R.P.No.280 of 2003

ORDER

27th February, 2008.