IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 56 of 2009()
1. K.P.ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O.MUHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, HOSDURG,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.MADHU
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :20/01/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
C.R.P.NO.56 OF 2009 ()
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010
O R D E R
Revision is directed against the proceedings of the Taluk
Land Board, Hosdurg dated 24.11.2008, by which, petitioner,
the assesee was held as holding 0.25 acres in excess of the
ceiling limit and direction issued to the Tahsildar to take
possession of such land. Admittedly, accepting the statement
filed by the petitioner, the Taluk Land Board had closed the
proceedings against the petitioner previously in 1976. Later,
the ceiling case was reopened under Section 85(9A) of the
Kerala Land Reforms Act and notice issued to the
petitioner/assesee. Pursuant to the proceedings conducted by
the Board, it was held that the petitioner is holding
0.25 acres in excess of the ceiling limit and he was directed to
surrender that land. That order was challenged by filing a
revision C.R.P.No.791 of 2002 before this Court. Proceedings
CRP.56/09 2
of the Taluk Land Board were set aside by order dated
6.9.2007 passed in the above revision with direction to the
Board to reconsider the matter afresh and pass orders after
giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity to lead evidence.
The present order impugned in the revision was passed by the
Taluk Land Board after remission as indicated above. The
revision petitioner has contended that he was not in
possession of the land, 0.25 acres, which was determined by
the Board as held by him as excess land. He contended that
the land was in the possession of one Sri.C.Ahamed and
Smt.Isabi. Enquiry conducted through the authorised officer
disclosed that the case so projected by the assesee was not
correct as the legal heirs of the persons named by him
disowned of having possession and enjoyment of the land. It
was also disclosed that the revenue charges over the land,
comprising 0.25 acres determined as excess land was also
remitted by the assesee. On the materials placed and after
due enquiry, the Board passed the impugned order holding
that the petitioner/assesee held excess land of 0.25 acres and
the revenue authority was directed to take possession of such
CRP.56/09 3
land.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also
the learned Govt.Pleader. It is submitted that the order
passed by the Taluk Land Board nor any of the materials
covered by its proceedings disclose sufficient grounds for
reopening of the ceiling case which was previously closed, and
as sufficient grounds were not made out for reopening of the
case, according to the counsel, the impugned order passed by
the Taluk Land Board cannot be sustained. I do not find any
merit in that submission. After reopening of the ceiling case,
the order passed by the Taluk Land Board had been
challenged earlier before this Court by filing C.R.P.No.791 of
2002. Whatever challenges against the reopening of the case,
if at all available to the petitioner, should have been canvassed
in that revision and not as a challenge to the present order
impugned which had been passed pursuant to remission
complying with the directions issued by this Court. The
learned Govt.Pleader also invited my attention that the ceiling
case was reopened on 10.2.1991 and notice was issued to the
CRP.56/09 4
assesee on 12.3.1992. The proviso to Section 85 (9A) of the
Land Reforms Act barred reopening of the case only after the
cut off date of 20.5.1992 is the submission of the learned
Govt.Pleader, which is not disputed. When that be so, there is
no merit in the challenge that the reopening of the case was
against the proviso to Section 85(9A) of the KLR Act or for any
other reason acceptable under law. It is interesting to note
that petitioner has not claimed any right over the land which
is sought to be taken over as excess land, but, had advanced a
case that the land so directed to be surrendered is under the
possession of someone else. That case has been found to be
false. When he has advanced such a case that the land is held
by someone else, needless to say, he cannot be aggrieved by
the order passed by the Taluk Land Board for surrender of
that land as excess land held by him. More over, a challenge
under Section 103 of the KLR Act in exercise of the revisional
jurisdiction by this Court is permissible only where the
authority under the above Act has decided erroneously, or
failed to decide, any question of law. No question of law is
canvassed or pointed out to assail the order passed by the
CRP.56/09 5
Taluk Land Board impugned in the revision. On that ground
also, the revision lacks merit and it is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp