IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 307 of 2007()
1. K.KAMALAM, W/O LATE ACHUTHA BHASKAR,
... Petitioner
2. B.REMA, D/O. LATE ACHUTHA BHASKAR AND
3. B.KASTHURI, D/O LATE ACHUTHA BHASKAR
4. B.ACHUTHAN, S/O LATE ACHUTHA BHASKAR,
5. S.ACHUTHAN, S/O LATE A.SIVAGIRI,
6. S.DEVADAS, S/O LATE A.SIVAGIRI,
7. P.ACHUTHAN, S/O LATE PARASURAMAN,
8. P.RAVINDRAN, S/O LATE PARASURAMAN,
9. P.PADMANABHAN, S/O LATE PARASURAMAN,
10. K.SETHUMADHAVAN, S/O KRISHNAKUTTY
Vs
1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD,
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
4. B.KAMALAM, D/O LATE ACHUTHA BHASKAR AND
5. B.INDIRA, D/O LATE ACHUTHA BHASKAR,
6. B.ARUNA, D/O LATE ACHUTHA BHASKAR AND
7. B.KOUSALYA, D/O LATE ACHUTHA BHASKAR
8. AMBUJAKSHY, W/O LATE PARASURAMAN,
9. MOHANAN, S/O LATE PARASURAMAN,
10. SITHA, D/O LATE PARASURAMAN AND
11. BHAMINI, D/O LATE PARASURAMAN AND
12. SANKARI, D/O LATE PARASURAMAN AND
For Petitioner :SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :20/02/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------
C.R.P.No.307 OF 2007
--------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008
O R D E R
~~~~~~~
This revision petition is preferred against the common
order of the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad in L.B.795/73, SM 5/87
and SM 6/87. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the
revision petition is stated as follows:
These ceiling cases are initiated against Achutha Bhaskar,
Parasuraman and Sivagiri who are brothers. All of them are
dead and their legal representatives are revision petitioners 1 to
9 and respondents 4 to 12 in the civil revision petition. The
property belongs to a joint family of these persons and one
Balakrishnan was divided as per a document dated 12.1.1968
whereby A schedule was set apart to the share of Balakrishnan
and B schedule was set apart to the shares of the three brothers
jointly and C schedule therein was kept in common.
Subsequently, the property set apart as B schedule in favour of
the three brothers were divided by them as per a document
dated 30.11.1971 whereby A schedule was set apart to Achutha
Bhaskar, B schedule to Parasuraman and C schedule to Sivagiri.
C.R.P.No.307/2007 2
2. So far as the property relating to Balakrishan is
concerned, it has been concluded that there is no excess land
held by him. We are only concerned with the lands pertaining to
the three brothers mentioned above. The Taluk Land Board had
taken the total extent held by the family (three families) as
303.41 acres and a quarter cent and allowed exemption for 12
acres being rubber estate, 239.11 acres being vested forest, area
deleted being in other persons possession 15.39 acres and area
deleted under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act
(Amendment) at 44.49 acres and thereby totally 310.99 acres.
3. I feel there is some fundamental mistake that has
kept into the order of the Taluk Land Board in that matter
because the total extent taken is 303 acres and the total extent
exempted is 310 acres. Again the Taluk Land Board
redetermined the land taking it as first family, second family and
third family and directed the first family to surrender 5.39 acres,
second family 3.39 acres and third family 11.39 acres.
4. The principal objections raised in the matter are;
i) the Taluk Land Board has gone wrong in calculating
the extent applying the land and fixing the ceiling limit
ii) secondly it has gone wrong in only exempting 12
C.R.P.No.307/2007 3
acres of land as rubber estate where as 54 acres of land to be
exempted and lastly the detailed objection which was directed to
be considered by this court has not been considered at all.
There is considerable force in all these contentions. At the
outset I may like to lay down the procedure and method to be
adopted in this case for the purpose of fixing the ceiling limit.
Since the present ceiling area is reckoned as on 1.1.1970, then
there is nothing wrong, if the Taluk Land Board takes into
consideration the partition deed under the year 1968 and also
the B schedule covered therein. So far as the B schedule to 1968
partition deed is concerned, each of the three brothers will be
entitled to one out of three shares. So far as it relates to the
common C schedule property of the 1968 partition deed, the
property has to be calculated as four shares and only three out of
four shares can be calculated for fixing the ceiling limit of these
brothers, that is, one out of four shares each.
iii) The method to be adopted is to find out first what is
the total extent of the land covered by B schedule and C
schedule of the 1968 partition deed.
iv) After arriving at that figure, the court is to find out
the exemption under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
C.R.P.No.307/2007 4
iv) Thereafter it can find out the land which is to be really
taken into consideration for fixing the ceiling limit of these three
persons, divided it by three and then proceeded to further hold
an enquiry regarding the entitlement of each of the family to
hold land. In these processes it has also to be stated the
detailed objections raised by the declarants have to be
considered by the Taluk Land Board and it has also to consider
why it has only exempted 12 acres of land as rubber estate,
when the order itself states that for 44.99 acres there is rubber
board registration. So all these matters has to be done
methodically and then to arrive at a conclusion regarding the
fact whether any of these brothers having land in excess of the
ceiling area which is liable to be surrendered under the Kerala
Land Reforms Act.
Therefore, the order under challenge is set aside and the
matter is remitted back to the Taluk Land Board for fresh
consideration of the materials mentioned above. After issuing
notices to the revision petitioners 1 to 9 and 10 and also the
respondents 4 to 12 by registered post with acknowledgment
due and thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with
law. Parties are permitted to adduce additional documentary or
C.R.P.No.307/2007 5
oral evidence in case of their respective contentions as well.
The court shall also independently consider petition filed by
the 10th revision petitioner under Section 85(8) in accordance
with law.
(M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE)
ps