IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 1540 of 1998(A)
1. T.K.BALAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. TLB, MANNARKKAD
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN(SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :14/01/2010
O R D E R
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C.R.P. No. 1540 of 1998
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 14th day of January, 2010.
ORDER
The order of the Taluk Land Board in I.A.33 of
1998 in C.C. 131 of 1973 is assailed in this proceedings. By
the said order a petition under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land
Reforms Act by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Ceiling proceedings were initiated against one
T.K. Kunjumalu Ammal and it was found that she was liable to
surrender an extent of 44.51 acres of land. That order of the
Taluk Land Board was assailed by several persons including
the petitioners before this Court. This Court allowed the
petition and remanded the matter to the Taluk Land Board for
fresh consideration. After remand, it is seen that the petitioner
laid a claim in respect of properties comprised in Sy. Nos.
55/1, 55/6, 55/0, 55/2, 55/9, 55/8 A and 55/8 B having an
extent of 7.81 acres, which he obtained as per Document
No.1275/1953. In the proceedings dated 19.11.1982 the Taluk
CRP.1540/1998. 2
Land Board upheld the contentions of the petitioner and held that
those items of properties did not belong to the declarant and were
liable to be excluded. According to learned counsel for the
petitioner, it was found that the landlord had clandestinely
included the above items of properties in his option statement to
the Taluk Land Board and the Taluk Land Board had initiated
proceedings to take possession of those lands. It was then that the
petition was filed by the petitioner.
3. The Taluk Land Board dismissed the petition
holding that it was belated and there was no petition to condone the
delay. The said order is assailed.
4. The order of the Taluk Land Board on the very face
of it is untenable both on facts and in law. It can be seen from the
facts of the case that the properties, over which the petitioner laid
claim was found to be not belonging to the original declarant and
that was directed to be excluded as per proceedings dated
19.11.1982. It is interesting to notice that the declarant had carried
CRP.1540/1998. 3
the matter in revision before this Court as C.R.P. 3662 of 1982.
There was no challenge to the finding of the Taluk Land Board as
regards the property over which the petitioner had laid claim.
Before this Court, the prayer of the revision petitioner, land owner,
was confined to seeking a re-option to surrender the land. It could
thus be seen that the order of the Land Tribunal, which exempted
the properties, which the petitioner claimed to be those belonging
to him has attained finality. Thereafter there was no question of
the declarant opting those lands for surrender. When the petitioner
came to know that the landlord had fraudulently included those
lands in his re-option, he approached the Land Board. One fails to
understand how the Land Board could have rejected his claim at
all. Strictly speaking, the question of application under Section 85
(8) does not arise for the simple reason that such a petition had
already been filed and that had been allowed in the earlier
proceedings dated 18.11.1982. That order was passed with the
declarant on the party array and after hearing him. After that, the
CRP.1540/1998. 4
inclusion of the land in the re-option statement by the landlord
subsequent to the order from this Court can only be treated as
fraudulent. Viewed from that angle, the finding of the Land Board
that the petition is not maintainable as barred by limitation since
there was no petition to condone the delay cannot be sustained.
5. It is also brought to the notice of this court that there
was a suit O.S.55 of 1989, instituted by the petitioner herein
against the declarant and others for declaration of title and
possession of the very same property involved in this proceedings,
since the declarant and others claimed independent right over the
same. In fact the defence in the suit by the declarant and others
was that they had perfected title over the suit property by adverse
possession and limitation. The suit was decreed in favour of the
plaintiff-petitioner herein. It is said that an appeal is pending and
the order has not become final. Any how, it is not necessary that
this court should wait for a finding in that appeal, that has nothing
to do with the present proceedings.
CRP.1540/1998. 5
Therefore, this revision is allowed, the impugned order
is set aside and it is held that the land which was exempted as
belonging to the petitioner in the order dated 18.11.1982 shall not
be taken possession of in pursuance of the re-option exercised by
the declarant. It is also made clear that the above findings are only
for the purpose of this proceeding and it may not affect the other
proceedings between the parties in the civil court.
P. BHAVADASAN,
JUDGE
sb.
CRP.1540/1998. 6
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
C.R.P. No. 1540 of 1998
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
ORDER
14.01.2010