IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 2857 of 2000(H)
1. PANAMBRON NABEESUMMA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.VIDHYA. A.C
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :09/04/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
---------------------------------------
C.RP.Nos.2857 & 2949 of 2000
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010
O R D E R
These two revisions are filed challenging the
orders passed by the Taluk Land Board, Thalassery in the
ceiling proceedings, numbered TLB-1253/73/Tly, in
respect of one Sri.Kunnath Chirayil Abdul Rahiman, the
declarant in the said proceeding. C.R.P.No.2857/00 is
filed by the widow and some of the children of the
abovesaid Abdul Rahiman and the other,
C.R.P.No.2949/00 by one of his sons.
2. Short facts giving rise to these revisions
may be summed up thus:
Sri.Kunnath Chirayil Abdul Rahiman
submitted a ceiling return in respect of the properties
held by him as mandated by Section 85(2) of the Kerala
Land Reforms Act {for short “the Act”}. His family
consisted of 9 members including him and the Taluk
Land Board, on determination of the excess area held by
him, found that he is entitled to have a deduction of 20
C.RP.Nos.2857 & 2949 of 2000
:: 2 ::
acres, the maximum limit fixed under the Act. Apart
from the above extent of land, the declarant was also
entitled to exemption of 22.5 cents under Section 81 of
the Act. The excess land to be surrendered by the
statement giver was determined as 29 acres. Pending
the proceedings over the determination of the excess
area, the statement giver had passed away and,
therefore, notices with draft statement were issued to his
widow. In response to such notices, the widow and
another one Kandoth Hamza filed objections over the
determination of the excess area of the declarant. The
Taluk Land Board, after due enquiry and examining the
objections determined the excess area of late Abdul
Rahiman as23 acres 55 cents and directed his legal
representatives to surrender that excess area. The
widow of Abdul Rahiman, first petitioner in
C.R.P.No.2857/00, challenged that order before this
court filing a revision C.R.P.No.1424/77. Sri.Kandoth
Hamza, who also objected to the determination of the
C.RP.Nos.2857 & 2949 of 2000
:: 3 ::
excess area filed another revision C.R.P.No.1410/77.
This court by common order dated 21.3.1979 disposed
both the above revisions directing the Taluk Land Board
to consider the matter afresh after giving opportunity to
both parties, and pass an order on merits. On such
remission, the Taluk Land Board conducted further
enquiry in which the legal representatives of Abdul
Rahiman and also Kandoth Hamza let in evidence to
substantiate their objections. After such enquiry, the
Taluk Land Board passed an order on 29.3.1984
determining the excess area to be surrendered by the
statement giver as 17 acres 69 cents. That order of the
Taluk Land Board was challenged by the widow and
some children of statement giver Abdul Rahiman filing
C.R.P.No.1334/84. Another revision was separately filed
by three others, who are also the children of the
statement giver Abdul Rahiman as C.R.P.No.1460/84.
Both those revisions were heard together and disposed of
by a common order dated 22.7.1987. The challenges
C.RP.Nos.2857 & 2949 of 2000
:: 4 ::
canvassed in the revision related to objection Nos.3, 5
and 7 raised before the Taluk Land Board. Objection
No.3 raised by the legal representatives of Abdul
Rahiman related to the claim set up by one of the
daughters of the statement giver, Smt.Kunhamina, was
married before 1.1.1970, and so much so, the land in her
possession as a donee from Abdul Rahiman should be
excluded from his account. Objection No.5 related to the
claim over 4.50 acres of land in the possession of another
daughter Panapurial Mariamma as a tenant. Though the
document executed in her favour is styled as a sale deed,
the nomenclature was not decisive and under that deed,
she had obtained tenancy right over that property was
the tenor of the objection. The Taluk Land Board has
repelled the aforesaid claims set up over the property
determined as that of Abdul Rahiman. This court in the
common order disposing the revisions set aside the order
of the Taluk Land Board with respect to the objection
Nos.3 and 5 raised as above, directing the Board to
C.RP.Nos.2857 & 2949 of 2000
:: 5 ::
examine such objections for de novo consideration.
Objection No.7 repelled by the Taluk Land Board, which
was challenged by the revision petitions was found
meritless, and the challenge canvassed thereof was
negatived. This court has passed an order in the
revisions as indicated below:
“The order of the Taluk Land Board insofar
as it relates to objection Nos.3 and 5, is set
aside; and the case covered by those objections
is remanded to the Taluk Land Board for a de
novo consideration. In all other respects, the
order is sustained.” (Emphasis supplied)
3. Pursuant to such remission, the Taluk Land
Board considered the objections raised in respect of
objection Nos.3 and 5 canvassed by the legal
representatives of the statement giver and the present
orders have been passed sustaining the objections and
granting exemption to the land covered by such
objections from the excess area determined as that of the
statement giver. The legal representatives of the
statement giver not being satisfied with the orders
C.RP.Nos.2857 & 2949 of 2000
:: 6 ::
passed by the Taluk Land Board, as indicated above,
have filed these two revisions under Section 103 of the
Act.
4. I heard the counsel on both sides.
5. Perusing the orders passed by the Taluk
Land Board with reference to the previous common order
passed on 22.7.1987 in C.R.P.Nos.1334/84 and 1460/84, I
find, it is not open to the legal representatives of the
statement giver to re-open any of the issues concluded
under the common order in the aforesaid revisions.
Whatever be the objections canvassed by the legal
representatives of the statement giver against the
determination of the excess area after the disposal of the
revision petitions, a further enquiry by the Taluk Land
Board was permissible only in respect of objection Nos.3
and 5 alone and it is not open to any of them to take up
any objection with respect to any other matter turned
down by the Taluk Land Board and the decision thereof
upheld by this court in the revisions. The Taluk Land
C.RP.Nos.2857 & 2949 of 2000
:: 7 ::
Board under the impugned order has upheld the
objections raised in respect of objection Nos.3 and 5 in
its entirety and has excluded the land covered by the
objections from the excess area determined as that of the
statement giver, the declarant, for surrender. The Taluk
Land Board, after exempting the lands covered by
objection Nos.3 and 5, had directed the surrender 10
acres and 19 cents of land as the excess area of the
statement giver. In response to the opportunity extended
to the legal representatives to furnish their option, the
widow of the statement giver had filed a statement with a
plan. After due enquiry through the authorised office,
the Board has determined and specified the land with
particulars of Survey number to be surrendered by the
legal representatives of the statement giver. The
challenge canvassed by filing these revisions, even after
the Taluk Land Board has upheld objection Nos.3 and 5
and exempted the lands covered under those objections,
no doubt, indicates the attempt of the legal
C.RP.Nos.2857 & 2949 of 2000
:: 8 ::
representatives of the declarant to delay the surrender of
the excess area determined under the impugned order by
the Taluk Land Board. By virtue of these revisions,
considerable delay had been caused in taking over
possession of such excess area, though no ground
whatsoever was available to the legal representatives of
the statement giver to impeach the legality, propriety
and correctness of the orders of the Taluk Land Board.
There is no merit in the revisions, and both
the revisions are dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN)
JUDGE
sk/-
//true copy//