IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 2000 of 1999(A)
1. C.SAHADEVAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :07/12/2007
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
...................................................................................
C.R.P. No. 2000 OF 1999
...................................................................................
Dated this the 7th December, 2007
O R D E R
Proceedings were initiated against the revision petitioners for determination of
the ceiling area in respect of the lands held by them, in L.B. 85 of 1973 on the file of
the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad. By final order dated 18.01.1984, the Taluk Land
Board held that the declarant is liable to surrender an extent of 11 acres and 4.5 cents
of land as excess land. Possession of an extent of 6 acres and 41.5 cents was
assumed from the declarant. The balance extent to be surrendered by him was 4.63
acres. The Taluk Land Board directed the petitioner/declarant to surrender an extent of
50 cents in Sy.No. 487/4 and 4.13 acres in Sy.No. 487/2, the total extent being 4.63
acres. The 4th respondent filed a claim petition under section 85(8) of the Kerala Land
Reforms Act claiming that he has tenancy right in respect of 50 cents of land in Sy.No.
487/4. The claimant contended that the declarant is not in the possession of the
aforesaid extent of 50 cents and that the declarant has no right, title and interest
over the said item of land as on 01.01.1970.
2. The Taluk Land Board did not decide as to whether the claimant under
section 85 (8) of the Act has established any tenancy right. It was also not verified by
deputing an authorised officer as to whether the declarant was in actual possession of
the said extent of land as on 01.01.1970 . Instead, the Taluk Land Board, by the
present impugned order, made a short cut and directed the declarant to surrender
the same extent of 4.63 acres in Sy.No.487/2 alone. The extent of 50 cents claimed
by the claimant was taken out of the items of lands to be surrendered but the said
C.R.P. No. 2000 OF 1999
2
extent was not deleted from the ceiling account of the declarant.
3. The method adopted by the Taluk Land Board in disposing of the case, after
entertaining an application under section 85(8) of the Land Reforms Act is not a legal
and proper method. Once a claim put forward by the claimant is accepted, the said
extent of land so proved to be held by the claimant shall be excluded from the account
of the declarant. If it is so excluded , necessarily, the total extent of land held by the
declarant would be less by the said extent of land which is allowed in favour of the
claimant. In such a case, the declarant does not stand to lose since the extent claimed
by the claimant and upheld by the Taluk Land Board will go out of the purview of the
total extent held by the declarant. Necessarily, after fixing the ceiling area applicable
to the declarant, there will be consequent reduction in the extent to be surrendered by
him. In the case on hand, if the claim made by the claimant is to be accepted, the
declarant need surrender only an extent of 4.13 acres instead of 4.63 acres . The
Taluk Land Board, though granted the benefit of excluding the land claimed by the
claimant out of the items of lands to be surrendered as excess land, did not exclude
that extent of land from the total extent held by the declarant. Instead, the Taluk Land
Board directed that the extent of 50 cents should be taken from another survey
number belonging to the declarant. The necessary consequence of a claim being
allowed is corresponding reduction in the total extent from the account of the
declarant. Instead of doing so, an easy method was adopted by the Taluk Land
Board, so that the claimant would not have any grievances, but the declarant alone
would be put to prejudice. When a claim is allowed under section 85(8) of the Act, the
declarant would not be entitled to opt to surrender that land under Section 85(6) of the
C.R.P. No. 2000 OF 1999
3
Act nor such option could be accepted by the Taluk Land Board . In case a claim
under Section 85 (8) is allowed in respect of a land, it would preclude the Taluk Land
Board from accepting the option exercised by the declarant in respect of that land. An
option can be rejected by the Taluk Land Board in any of the following three
contingencies mentioned in sub-section (6) of Section 85 of the Act, viz.:
(i) The Taluk Land Board has reason to believe that the person whose land is
indicated to be surrendered has no good title to that land; or
(ii) the land indicated to be surrendered is not accessible ; or
(iii) the Taluk Land Board considers for any other reason to be recorded in
writing that it is not practicable to accept the choice .
4. The second proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 85 states that where in
determining the identity of land to be surrendered , the interest of other persons are
also likely to be affected, the Taluk Land Board shall except in cases where all the
persons interested have agreed to the choice indicated , afford an opportunity to such
other persons to be heard and pass suitable orders regarding the land to be
surrendered. A person whose interest is likely to be affected includes a person
whose claim could be accepted under section 85(8). Once his claim is accepted, he
need not again appear before the Taluk Land Board to answer the exercise of option
by the declarant. In other words, once a claim is allowed under section 85(8) of the
Act, it goes out of purview of exercise of option by the declarant under section 85(6)
of the Act. All these provisions would clearly indicate that the Taluk Land Board
cannot simply accept the claim of a claimant and at the same time include that land in
the total extent of land held by the declarant.
C.R.P. No. 2000 OF 1999
4
5. The order passed by the Taluk Land Board is illegal and unsustainable and
it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order passed by the Taluk Land Board is set
aside . The Taluk Land Board shall dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law
and in the manner indicated above. No order as to costs.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
lk
C.R.P. No. 2000 OF 1999
5
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
………………………………………………..
C.R.P. No. 2000 OF 1999
…………………………………………………
Dated this the 7th December, 2007
O R D E R
