IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 1255 of 2001(E)
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SMT.ADRUSSERI SREEDEVI
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :16/01/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------
C.R.P.No.1255 of 2001
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 16th day of January, 2008
O R D E R
This revision petition is preferred against the order of the
Taluk Land Board, Tirur in S.M.5/98, whereby the Taluk Land Board
held that the assessee is eligible to hold 15 ordinary acres of land,
whereas she is in possession of only 13 acres and = cent and,
therefore, dropped the ceiling case.
2. Heard learned Government Pleader, who argued the
matter in extenso, as well as the learned counsel for the
respondent.
3. At the outset, I may like to state that the Taluk Land
Board has considered each and every objection and had given
cogent convincing reason for consideration and acceptance. The
first objection is regarding survey No.190/1, where the Taluk Land
Board found that as per the Authorised Officer’s report, the correct
extent which belonged to the assessee is only 6 cents and therefore
deleted 10 cents from the ceiling account. Similarly, with respect to
other survey numbers as well, the Taluk Land Board considered and
found that they are supported by documents. In so far as it relates
to 76 cents in R.S.No.359/17, the Court found that by virtue of a
C.R.P.1255/01
-2-
document in the year 1920, the property was entrusted by the
Tharavadu of the assessee to one Kunnath Kunheen and by
subsequent devolution of the documents in the years 1933, 1966
etc. and by virtue of certificates of purchase issued, the property is
in the possession of others and therefore deleted 76 cents of land.
It is a well considered order giving cogent reason for exclusions.
Similarly, the Taluk Land Board also considered in detail the
acceptability of the contentions regarding survey No.270/12, where
the property has been assigned in favour of the individual tenants
as per orders in O.A.1732/76, O.A.6634/76 and O.A.6635/76. All
these files were perused and the contention of the persons that
their tenancy under the Tharavadu was considered by the Taluk
Land Board and they are supported by anterior documents and
therefore accepted the same. Similarly, the objections regarding
R.S. Nos.197/1, 214/3, 133/1 & 133/4 also had been considered
elaborately and had been answered in favour of the assessee.
4. In the revision memorandum, the Government of Kerala
has just challenged each and every findings of the Taluk Land Board
but do not find any materials in support of that contention. If it is
not a well considered order and there is no reasoning, certainly this
C.R.P.1255/01
-3-
Court should interfere in the matter. But here is a case where the
Taluk Land Board has considered each and every aspect referred to
in the document and also relied upon the Authorised Officer’s report
to arrive at a decision. It is a well considered proposition that the
certificate of purchase issued is a conclusive proof of pendency
unless the same is vitiated by fraud or other circumstances under
the Contract Act. Similarly, it is also equally settled principle that
the Authorised Officer’s report is an acceptable piece of evidence, as
he has exercised statutory provisions under Section 105 of the
Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Apex Court has also held about the
conclusive proof of the certificate of purchase under Section 72(k)
in Mathew & Others Vs. Taluk Land Board, reported in 1979
KLT 601. So from these discussions, I do not find that any illegality
or irregularity is committed by the Taluk Land Board in arriving at a
decision. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed.
(M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE)
jg