IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 939 of 2005()
1. ARAVINDAKSHAN, S/O. LATE MUTHU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD.
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :04/10/2010
O R D E R
V.RAMKUMAR, J.
-------------------------------------
C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of October, 2010
ORDER
The common revision petitioner in these revision
petitions is one Aravindakshan who is the adopted son of
one Muthu and his wife Rugmini. In C.R.P.No.939/2005
Aravindakshan challenges the order dated 18.8.2005 in
SM.849/76 passed by the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad. In
C.R.P.No.1203/2005, Aravindakshan challenges an order
dated 9.2.2000 in the said proceedings passed by the
Taluk Land Board, Palakkad.
2. The facts leading to the impugned orders can be
summarised as follows:-
SM 849/76 was the ceiling case of Muthu the
father of Aravindakshan referred to above. This case had
a checkered career. Originally, the Taluk Land Board
disposed of the case as per final order dated 10.3.1976.
There was a revision filed by Muthu as C.R.P.No.1653/1976 before this Court. This Court
disposed of the said C.R.P on 15.3.1978. The Taluk Land
C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005
: 2 :
Board, Palakkad then passed final orders on 6.9.1978.
There was a writ petition filed before this Court as
O.P.No.3856/1978 which was disposed of on 17.10.1980.
There was a partition suit before the Sub Court, Palakkad
as O.S.No.366/1978 involving the revision petitioner.
After the decisions of the Civil Court, the Taluk Land Board
again passed a final order dated 24.9.1982 excluding
certain properties said to have been allotted to the
revision petitioner Aravindakshan in the partition and
excluding certain extent of land from the account of
Muthu, the assessee who was the foster father of
Aravindakshan. Again there was C.R.P. No.2861/1982
before this Court. The said revision was disposed of by
this Court on 31.7.1987. The Taluk Land Board again
passed final orders on 13.10.1987 against which
C.R.P.No.1850/1987 was filed before this Court. The said
C.R.P was disposed of on 22.8.1989. Thereafter, as per
final order dated 20.4.1993, the Taluk Land Board held
that the total extent of land held by the assessee Muthu
C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005
: 3 :
was 26.25 acres. After deducting 10.98 acres being the
half share of the properties covered by the decree in the
partition suit allotted to Aravindakshan, the Taluk Land
Board held that the total extent of land held by the
assessee Muthu was 15.67 acres from which one acre
qualified for exemption under Section 81 of the Kerala
Land Reforms Act. Another extent of 42 cents was
excluded as land in the possession of others. The ceiling
area applicable to the family consisting of two members
was found to be 12 acres. After excluding the 1 acre and
42 cents referred to above, the Taluk Land Board directed
the family of Muthu to surrender 2.25 acres. In the
meanwhile, Muthu, the assessee died on 4.5.1990.
C.R.P.No.1881/1993 was filed by Rugmini, the widow of
Muthu challenging the final order dated 20.4.1993. As per
order dated 29.10.1999, this Court partly allowed the
revision holding that the total extent of land held by the
family after deducting 10.98 acres being the half share
allotted to Aravindakshan in the partition suit, was 15.27
C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005
: 4 :
and not 15.67 as was wrongly stated in the final order
dated 20.4.1993. Accordingly, this Court held that the
balance extent to be surrendered was not 2.25 acres (as
wrongly mentioned in the final order), but it was only 1.85
acres. This Court granted two weeks time to Rugmini, the
revision petitioner therein to exercise her option before
the Taluk Land Board. The said period of two weeks was
further extended by another two weeks as per order dated
22.11.1999 in C.M.P.No.5118/1999 in C.R.P.No.1881/1993.
In spite of the extension granted to Rugmini, she did not
exercise any fresh option with regard to the land to be
surrendered. Aravindakshan, the revision petitioner gave
an option on 18.11.1999 which was, however, rejected by
the Taluk Land Board on 9.2.2000 which is the order
impugned in C.R.P.No.1203/2005. In the said final order
dated 9.2.2000, the Taluk Land Board fixed the extent and
identity of the 1.85 acres of land to be surrendered by the
family as follows:-
C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005
: 5 :
Village Sy.No. Extent Classification
A. Cents
Pirayiri 12/1 0.07 OD
87/9A 0.23 OD
16/7C 0.40 OD
4/1B 0.17 SCW
87/9A 0.37 OD
4/29A 0.04 OD
4/29B 0.05 OD
4/29D 0.52 OD
---------------
Total 1.85
=======
The Taluk Land Board while passing the order dated
9.2.2000 had taken the view that Aravindakshan had no
locus standi to file an application for re-option under
Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. On
11.4.2005, Aravindakshan filed another application under
Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act before the
Taluk Land Board requesting for change of the identity of
the land which had already been taken possession of by
C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005
: 6 :
the Government. The said application was rejected as per
order dated 18.8.2005. Pursuant to the order dated
9.2.2000 passed by the Taluk Land Board, 1.85 acres of
land detailed above were taken possession of by the
Tahsildar. Thereupon, Aravindakshan filed a contempt
petition as C.O.C.No.245/2006 before this Court alleging
that possession was taken in violation of the order of stay
granted in C.R.P.No.939/2005. In the contempt
proceedings it was contented on behalf of the State that
the property which was taken possession of was assigned
to 19 agriculturist as per the provisions of the Kerala Land
Reforms (Ceiling) Rule 1970 (hereafter referred to as the
“Ceiling Rules”). However, pursuant to the order dated
14.6.2006 passed by this Court in the contempt petition,
the Government cancelled the assignments. The resultant
position was that 1.85 acres of land the identity of which
was fixed as per the order dated 9.2.2000 still remains to
be the land ordered to be surrendered by Rugmini, the
widow of Muthu. In the contempt petition, as per order
C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005
: 7 :
dated 14.6.2006 this Court had directed the State to
restore the possession of the aforesaid 1.85 acres of land
to Aravindakshan, the common petitioner herein. On
19.8.2009 this Court passed an interim common order in
both these revisions noting the contentions of the revision
petitioner that the 1.85 acres which were claimed to have
been taken possession of by the Tahsildar was not after
complying with the procedure laid down by the Full Bench
of this Court in Govinda Pillai v. Taluk Land Board
1991 (2) KLT 880. This Court also took note of the
contention of the learned Government Pleader that the
petitioner had no locus standi under section 85(8) of the
KLR Act to submit further option regarding surrender of
property and that opportunity was given by this Court to
exercise a further option only to Rugmini while disposing
of C.R.P.No.1881/1993 and she did not exercise the option
within the time granted by this Court and therefore the
land was taken possession of and assigned to strangers
and it was only in deference to the order passed by this
C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005
: 8 :
Court that the Government cancelled the assignments and
resumed the property back.
3. After hearing both sides at length this Court
granting one more opportunity to the mother and son
namely Rugmini and Aravindakshan to file a joint option
statement before this Court with copy to the Government
Pleader regarding the 1.85 acres to be surrendered to the
Government. In the meanwhile Rugmini, foster mother of
the petitioner died on 18.6.2009. On 6.9.2009, the
petitioner filed an option statement offering to surrender
1.85 acres comprising in 5 different parts of land as
follows:-
1. Sy.No.87/9A (R.S.No.197/4) – 0.60 cents (37 + 23)
2. Sy.No.16/7C (R.S.No.223/14) – 0.40 cents
3. Sy.No.4/29D (R.S.No.234/2) – 0.55 cents
4. Sy.No.13/1 (R.S.No.234/2) – 0.14 cents
5. Sy.No.53/3 (R.S.No.210/6) – 0.16 cents
—————-
Total 1.85 Acres
=========
C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005
: 9 :
4. The learned Government Pleader
submitted that while three of the items comprised in
Sy.Nos.4/29D, 13/1 and 53/3 are in the possession of the
petitioner, two items comprised in Sy.Nos.87/9A and
16/7C are not in the possession of the petitioner. Those
two items which are not in the possession of the petitioner
cannot be permitted to be surrendered to the
Government. With regard to the three items which are in
the possession of the petitioner also they are not suitable
to be surrendered to the State and the Taluk Land Board
may be directed to consider the fresh option now made by
the petitioner.
5. In the light of the dispute as aforesaid, I
consider it expedient to direct the Taluk Land Board to go
into the question regarding the feasibility of surrendering
the 5 items of properties mentioned in the option
statement dated 6.9.2009 filed by the petitioner. It is
needless to say that if all the above items have been put
in the account of Muthu, the assessee, the Taluk Land
C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005
: 10 :
Board can refuse to accept the option given by the
petitioner only on any of the grounds mentioned in
Section 85(6) of the KLR Act.
6. The Taluk Land Board shall consider whether
any of the aforesaid five items contained in the option
statement dated 6.9.2009 filed by the petitioner before
this Court has already been included in the final order
impugned in the proceedings. The Taluk Land Board shall
take into account the same also while considering the
acceptability of the option. In case the Taluk Land Board
does not accept the aforesaid option either wholly or in
part it shall give the petitioner one more opportunity to
exercise fresh option so as to enable him to surrender a
total of 1.85 acres. The matter is accordingly remitted to
the Taluk Land Board for the aforementioned purposes.
These C.R.Ps are disposed of accordingly.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
dmb