IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 2256 of 2000(E)
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ABDUL RAHIM
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.G.UNNIIKRISHNON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :27/11/2007
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
--------------------------------------------
C.R.P. NO. 2256 OF 2000 E
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of November, 2007
O R D E R
The State has filed this Revision challenging the order dated
10.11.1999 in No.148/73, on the file of the Taluk Land Board,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The proceedings were initiated on the basis of a statement
under Section 85A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, filed by the declarant
Sri.Abdul Rahim, who is the respondent in this Revision. The Taluk Land
Board considered the objections raised by the declarant and by its final
order dated 12.7.1976, held that the declarant is liable to surrender an
extent of 5.40.332 acres of land as excess land. Against that order, the
declarant filed C.R.P.No.3679 of 1976 before this Court, which was
disposed of by the order dated 6.9.1978. The revisional court directed the
Taluk Land Board to consider the matter afresh on certain matters which
were specifically ordered. Thereafter, the Taluk Land Board considered
the case in the light of the order in C.R.P.No.3679 of 1976 and passed an
order dated 12.8.1981 holding that the declarant is liable to surrender an
extent of 4.25.332 acres of land. The order dated 12.8.1981 was
challenged by the declarant in C.R.P.No.3422 of 1981. As per order
dated 25.1.1984, this Court directed the Taluk Land Board to consider the
case in respect of 1.28 acres of land covered by the purchase certificate
in O.A.No.806 of 1975.
C.R.P. NO.2256 OF 2000
:: 2 ::
3. In C.R.P.No.3422 of 1981, the declarant raised a contention
that seven cents of land in Sy.No.447/B is liable to be excluded. That
contention was accepted by this Court as per the order dated 25.1.1984.
Another contention put forward by the declarant was in respect of 1.28
acres. It was contended that this extent of land is liable to be excluded
from the total area included in the account of the declarant as the extent
of 1.28 acres was assigned by the Land Tribunal concerned in favour of a
third party as per its order in O.A.No.806 of 1975. A purchase certificate
was also issued by the Land Tribunal in favour of the tenant in respect of
that land. The State contended that the purchase certificate was not
genuinely issued and that the proceedings before the Land Tribunal are
vitiated by fraud and collusion. This contention was dealt with by this
Court in the order dated 25.1.1984 in C.R.P.No.3422 of 1981 thus:
“… The next contention is that 1.28 acres covered by
a purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal in
O.A.No.806/75 ought to have been excluded from the total
extent. It is not disputed that there is a purchase certificate
issued by the Land Tribunal. Though there is a purchase
certificate only if the conditions insisted by the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Mathew & others v. Taluk Land Board
(1979 K.L.T. 601) are satisfied, the Taluk Land Board can
ignore that purchase certificate. Though some reasons are
given by the Taluk Land Board, the Taluk Land Board has
not considered the matter in the proper perspective. So it
goes without saying that the inclusion of 1.28 acres in the
total extent of the lands of the petitioner has to be
considered afresh by the Taluk Land Board in the light of the
decision mentioned above and a decision taken…”
C.R.P. NO.2256 OF 2000
:: 3 ::
4. In C.R.P.No.3422 of 1981, the declarant/revision petitioner
raised other objections as well. But, this Court held that those objections
could not be considered in view of the order in C.R.P.No.3679 of 1976. It
was held thus:
“.. The other objections raised by the petitioner cannot
now be considered in view of the order of this court in
C.R.P.No.3679/76 which the petitioner filed against the first
order of the Taluk Land Board in the ceiling case.”
5. Thus it can be seen that the only point which was directed to be
considered by the Taluk Land Board was in respect of 1.28 acres of land
covered by the purchase certificate in O.A.No.806 of 1975.
6. The Taluk Land Board, as per the final order dated 10.11.1999,
which is impugned in this Civil Revision Petition, held that 1.28 acres
covered by the purchase certificate in O.A.No.806 of 1975 is liable to be
excluded from the account of the declarant. The proceedings for issue of
purchase certificate were initiated in 1975 and the Land Tribunal has
issued the purchase certificate on 15.3.1976. The Taluk Land Board,
after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the
conclusion that the extent of 1.28 acres of land is liable to be excluded. I
do not think that there is any illegality or irregularity in the proceedings of
the Taluk Land Board in excluding the extent of 1.28 acres of land from
the account of the declarant.
C.R.P. NO.2256 OF 2000
:: 4 ::
7. The Taluk Land Board did not stop with the case in respect of
1.28 acres. Objection dated 7.6.1990 was filed by the declarant in
respect of other matters as well, which were foreclosed by the order in
C.R.P.Nos.3422 of 1981 and 3679 of 1976. The Taluk Land Board
entertained that objection, considered the same and excluded an extent
of 16 cents of land in Sy.Nos.400 A and B, on the ground that this extent
happened to be a duplication in the draft statement. The Taluk Land
Board in this context held thus:
“… Another contention of the declarant raised before
theTaluk Land Board on 22-1-76 and 22-12-88 was that an
extent of 11 cents and 5 cents in Sy.Nos.400 A and 400 B of
Muttathara Village are wrongly included in the total extent of
the land held by the declarant by inadvertence. The total
extent as per items Nos.8 in the draft statement is only 21
cents (5 cents in Sy.No.402, 11 cents in Sy.No.400 A and 5
cents in Sy.No.400 B). By oversight this extent of 16 cents
(11 + 5 cents in Sy.No.400 A & B) has been entered
separately in the draft statement, Trivandrum is actually a
duplication. Hence the same extent of 16 cents has to be
excluded from the total extent of the declarant.
As per the High Court’s direction the extent of 7 cents
in Cy.No.447/B of Iranimuttom (now Manacaud) Village has
been deleted from the total extent of the declarant and the
case was posted for hearing on different dates. The
concerned parties and legal heirs of the declarant have been
heard and the following points are found true to the Taluk
Land Board.
On verification of the partition deed no.1379 of 1968
of Schedule (D) it is found that the above contention against
the 16 cents in Sy.Nos.400 A & B was actually a duplication
and the same extent is hereby excluded.”
C.R.P. NO.2256 OF 2000
:: 5 ::
8. Though strictly speaking, the Taluk Land Board was not
justified in entertaining the objections which were already raised in 1976
and 1988 and though it could not have enlarged the scope of the remand
order, I am of the view that if, on the facts, the Taluk Land Board was
right in holding that there was duplication, there was power for the Taluk
Land Board to delete the said extent of land exercising its jurisdiction
under Rule 136A of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1970.
Rule 136A reads as follows:
“136A. Correction of mistakes in orders of Land
Tribunal or the Taluk Land Board and Land Board:–
Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in orders of the Land
Tribunal or the Taluk Land Board or the Land Board or
errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission
may at any time be corrected by the Land Tribunal or the
Taluk Land Board or the Land Board as the case may be
either of its own motion or on the application of any of the
parties.”
The power conferred on the Taluk Land Board under Rule 136A can be
exercised at any time either suo motu or on application. The case was
remanded to the Taluk Land Board with certain specific directions. Still
the power to correct mistakes in respect of other matters could be
exercised by the Taluk Land Board invoking Rule 136A of the Kerala Land
Reforms (Tenancy) Rules. The Taluk Land Board found that there was
duplication in respect of 16 cents of land. I am of the view that the Taluk
Land Board was right in excluding this extent of 16 cents of land from the
account of the declarant.
C.R.P. NO.2256 OF 2000
:: 6 ::
9. Another point which the Taluk Land Board considered, which
according to the learned Government Pleader was absolutely without
jurisdiction, was in respect of an extent of 46.5 cents in Sy.No.4/1A. A
contention was put forward by the declarant before the Taluk Land Board
that this extent of 46.5 cents was acquired by the Government for the
establishment of fishermen’s colony even before 1.1.1970 and
compensation was paid to the declarant’s mother. He produced copy of
the award to substantiate this contention. The Taluk Land Board found
that an extent of 18.80 Ares in Sy.No.4/2-2 was acquired for the
establishment of fishermen’s colony and on that ground excluded the said
extent of land from the account of the declarant. It was held by the Taluk
Land Board thus:
“Another contention raised by the declarant in his
objection statement as per read eighth paper above that an
extent of 46.5 cents (18-80 acres) in Sy.No.4/1A of
Thiruvallam Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk was
acquired by the Government before 1.1.1970 from his
mother for the rehabilitation of fishermen. Hence the extent
of 46.5 cents of land has to be exempted from the total
extent of the declarant.
The declarant has produced a copy of A.S.No.16/69-
70 from which it is seen that 18.80 Ares of land in
Sy.No.4/2-2 of Thiruvallam Village has been acquired for
establishment of Fishermen’s Colony. Compensation paid
and the land handed over to the Fisheries Department on
27.3.1969. The Award in this case is seen passed in the
name of Smt.Muhammed Fathummal the mother of the
declarant. This it is evident that this extent of land has
never been in the possession of the declarant after
C.R.P. NO.2256 OF 2000
:: 7 ::
1.1.1970. The declarant is therefore entitled to get this
18.80 ares also excluded from the total extent of land held
by him. The Taluk Land Board unanimously gives such a
finding.”
10. I am of the view that the Taluk Land Board was not justified in
reopening the case in respect of 46.5 cents of land (18.80 Ares). If this
extent of land was acquired before 1.1.1970, that was a contention which
the declarant might and ought to have raised before the Taluk Land Board
in the objections to the draft statement. The Taluk Land Board passed
the order dated 12.7.1976, which was the subject matter of
C.R.P.NO.3679 of 1976 before this Court. The Taluk Land Board
thereafter passed an order dated 12.8.1981, which was carried in
Revision by the declarant in C.R.P.No.3422 of 1981. Objections raised by
the declarant in respect of other points other than 1.28 acres covered by
the purchase certificate were specifically excluded from the purview of the
fresh consideration by the Taluk Land Board, when this Court disposed of
C.R.P.No.3422 of 1981. Therefore, the Taluk Land Board was not
justified at all in considering the question whether, in fact, the extent of
46.50 cents of land was acquired before 1.1.1970. The declarant or
assessee in a ceiling case would have several objections and those
objections should be raised before the Taluk Land Board. The declarant
in this case raised such objections. The Taluk Land Board considered it.
The matter was carried in Revision twice before this Court. This Court
C.R.P. NO.2256 OF 2000
:: 8 ::
specifically excluded all other objections, other than the objection in
respect of 1.28 acres covered by the purchase certificate, from the scope
of fresh consideration by the Taluk Land Board. The Taluk Land Board
has no jurisdiction at all to reopen the other issues and exclude 46.50
cents of land. The question can be answered when we consider the issue
in another angle. If the order in C.R.P.No.3422 of 1981 was fully in
favour of the declarant in respect of 1.28 acres of land, the proceedings
before the Taluk Land Board would have come to an end. Similarly, had
this Court taken the view against the declarant finally in respect of 1.28
acres of land then also the proceedings before the Taluk Land Board
would have come to an end. In these eventualities, the Taluk Land Board
could not have initiated any proceeding under the Kerala Land Reforms
Act or Ceiling Rules or Tenancy Rules to reopen the issue which was
concluded. Viewed in that angle, I am of the view that the Taluk Land
Board was not at all justified in reopening the case with respect to 46.5
cents of land and it has no jurisdiction to do so. The order of the Taluk
Land Board in respect of its finding excluding 46.5 cents of land in
Sy.No.4/1A from the account of the declarant is illegal, perverse and
without jurisdiction. That part of the order passed by the Taluk Land
Board is hereby set aside.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is partly
C.R.P. NO.2256 OF 2000
:: 9 ::
allowed and the order passed by the Taluk Land Board in respect of
exclusion of 46.5 cents of land in Sy.No.4/1A of Thiruvallam Village is set
aside. The findings in respect of 1.28 acres of land covered by the
purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal as well as the finding in
respect of 16 cents of land in Sy.No.400 A and B are hereby confirmed.
No order as to costs.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
——————————————-
——————————————-
C.R.P.NO. 2256 OF 2000 E
O R D E R
27th November, 2007
——————————————-