IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 553 of 2002(E)
1. SIVA PRAKASH, S/O.P.A.KUTTIKRISHNAN.
... Petitioner
2. PRABHUL RAJ, S/O. P.A.KUTTIKRISHNAN.
3. PRADEEP, S/O. P.A.KUTTIKRISHNAN.
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD,
3. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD TALUK.
4. P.A.KUTTIKRISHNAN, S/O. APPU,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)
For Respondent :GOVT.PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :20/06/2008
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
--------------------------------------------
C.R.P. NO. 553 OF 2002
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008
O R D E R
The revision petitioners are the sons of the declarant. The revision
is directed against the order of the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad dated
9.10.2001 in S.M. No.1539 of 1982. The Taluk Land Board, by an earlier
order dated 16.5.1995 directed the declarant to surrender 1.10 acres of land
being excess land. The revision petitioners filed C.R.P. No.1276 of 1998
challenging the said order. They contended before this Court that the
property comprised in Survey No.170/1A included in the ceiling
proceedings is lesser in extent. This Court by order dated 19.1.2001 held
that revision petitioners 1 and 2 were minors at the time of initiation of the
ceiling proceedings and hence they have got a right to be heard. This
Court, therefore, set aside the impugned order and directed the Taluk Land
Board to reconsider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law after affording an opportunity to revision petitioners
1 and 2 of being heard.
C.R.P. NO.553/2002 2
2. In the light of the above direction issued by this Court, the Taluk
Land Board deputed an authorised officer to enquire into the matter and to
submit a report. In this proceeding as well, the learned counsel appearing
for the revision petitioners repeated the same contentions. It is submitted
that the actual extent of property in Survey No. 170/1A is not 1.58 acres,
but only 1.30 acres and that the actual extent can only be ascertained by
measurement of the property in question. The revision petitioners had
made a request before the Taluk Land Board to measure the land held by
the family in Survey No.170/1A by deputing a Surveyor.
3. I have perused the copy of the report. The only request made by
the petitioners is to measure the property in question with the help of a
Surveyor to ascertain the exact extent. The said request was turned down
by the authorised officer. Instead of measuring the property as directed by
the Taluk Land Board and as requested by the claim petitioners, the
authorised officer passed orders as if he is the authority under the Kerala
Land Reforms Act, 1963 to determine the rights of parties. In the last
paragraph of the report dated 21.6.2001, the authorised officer has stated
that the claim of the petitioners is baseless, that the land held by the family
in the said Survey No. is 5.04 acres and not 1.58 acres, that the declarant
had neither denied this fact earlier nor questioned the entry in the draft
C.R.P. NO.553/2002 3
statement before the High Court and that the request of the petitioners to
measure the land in Survey No.170/1A cannot be considered as the Taluk
Land Board has no such business to measure the land. Stating so, the
authorised officer rejected the request of the claim petitioners.
4. The grievance of the revision petitioners is regarding the
property to be surrendered in Survey No.170/1A. The Taluk Land Board
accounted 1.58 acres as belonging to the assessee. The only question to be
examined is whether the property ordered to be surrendered is 1.58 acres
or 1.30 acres in extent. The exact extent can be ascertained only by
measuring the property. In such circumstances, when a request is made
for measuring the property, it cannot be rejected stating unsustainable
reasons. The Taluk Land Board also did not apply its mind to the report
submitted by the authorised officer who has no authority to make such
remarks as noted above. The authorised officer assumed the role of the
Taluk Land Board and decided the merit of the claim then and there.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
view that the matter requires reconsideration. The order under revision is
set aside and the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad is directed to reconsider the
matter immediately and pass orders within a period of three months from
C.R.P. NO.553/2002 4
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Before passing orders, the
Taluk Land Board shall depute a responsible officer to the site to measure
out the property and ascertain the exact extent of the property in question.
The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above with a cost of
Rs.2,000/- on respondents 1 to 3. .
(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE)
sp/
C.R.P. NO.553/2002 5
HAURN-UL-RASHID, J.
C.R.P. NO. 553/2002
O R D E R
20th June, 2008