{"id":249488,"date":"2007-11-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-cdhellapan-nair-vs-taluk-land-board-on-21-november-2007"},"modified":"2016-11-04T10:29:49","modified_gmt":"2016-11-04T04:59:49","slug":"k-cdhellapan-nair-vs-taluk-land-board-on-21-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-cdhellapan-nair-vs-taluk-land-board-on-21-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"K.Cdhellapan Nair vs Taluk Land Board on 21 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.Cdhellapan Nair vs Taluk Land Board on 21 November, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP No. 1290 of 2000(G)\n\n\n\n1. K.CDHELLAPAN NAIR\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. TALUK LAND BOARD\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN\n\n Dated :21\/11\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                                                      K.T. SANKARAN, J.\n\n                           ...................................................................................\n\n                                 C.R.P. Nos.   1290 OF 2000 & 1730 OF 2003\n\n                           ...................................................................................\n\n                                        Dated this the 21st November, 2007\n\n\n\n\n                                                            O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
           C.R.P.No. 1290 of 2000 is filed by the  declarant in  LB. No. 372 of 1973 of the<\/p>\n
Taluk   Land   Board,   Palakkad   challenging   the   order   dated   11.04.2000.     The   Civil<\/p>\n
Revision   Petition   was   admitted   and   an   interim   order   dated   16.06.2000   was   passed<\/p>\n
which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\n
           “There will be a stay of dis-possession of the petitioner from 4.52 acres<\/p>\n
           of   property   covered   by   gift   deed   of   the   year   1968.     Regarding   the<\/p>\n
           balance extent, the petitioner can exercise his option and the same will<\/p>\n
           be considered. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
           2.     The   Taluk   Land   Board   passed   an   order   dated   19.12.2000   exempting   an<\/p>\n
extent of 4.52 acres   under the misapprehension that this court had finally disposed of<\/p>\n
C.R.P. 1290 of 2000.  The order dated 19.12.2000 is challenged by the State in C.R.P.<\/p>\n
1730 of 2003 .\n<\/p>\n
\n
           3.  The Revision Petitioner\/declarant filed a statement  under section  85 A of the<\/p>\n
Kerala Land  Reforms  Act  ,  1963  (hereinafter  referred   to  as  ‘Act’).     He   has  shown his<\/p>\n
wife   and   five   children   as   members   of   the   statutory   family.         In   the   draft   statement<\/p>\n
issued to the declarant,   the total extent of the land   held by the declarant was   shown<\/p>\n
as  29.71   acres;   exemption   was   granted   for   an  extent   of   62   cents;     ceiling   area     was<\/p>\n
fixed  at 12 acres and the declarant was directed to surrender an extent of 17.09 acres .<\/p>\n
After considering the objections filed by the declarant   and the claim petitions made by<\/p>\n
several   persons,   the   Taluk   Land   Board   passed   the   final   order   dated   17.11.1982,   by<\/p>\n
C.R.P. Nos.   1290 OF 2000 & 1730 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
which   it   was   held   that   the   declarant   is   liable   to   surrender   an   extent   of   8.32   acres   .<\/p>\n
Challenging the order passed by the Taluk Land Board , the declarant filed C.R.P. No.<\/p>\n
20 of 1983 , which was disposed of by this court as per order dated 05.02.1987.   This<\/p>\n
court held  that  though many points were raised in the revision, the only point urged at<\/p>\n
the time of hearing was about exercise of option.  An opportunity to exercise option was<\/p>\n
granted in favour of the petitioner .\n<\/p>\n
\n
         4.  There was litigation pending before the civil court between the declarant  and<\/p>\n
his     brother   Madhavan   Nair.     The   legal   heirs   of   Madhavan   Nair   filed   C.R.P.No.17   of<\/p>\n
1983 challenging   the   order   dated    17.11.1982.     The  declarant  opted   to  surrender   the<\/p>\n
land over which Madhavan Nair had laid claim.  It was brought to the notice of the court<\/p>\n
in C.R.P.   17    of  1983 that  the revision  filed by the  declarant    was disposed  of  earlier<\/p>\n
granting   liberty   to   exercise     fresh   option.     However,   in   C.R.P.   17   of   1983,   as   per<\/p>\n
judgment dated  11.01.1988,  the High  Court  took  the view that the matter  requires  re-<\/p>\n
consideration and the order passed by the Taluk  Land Board   dated   17.11.1982  was<\/p>\n
vacated.  It was held that only on a  proper  determination of the disputes involved in the<\/p>\n
appeals pending before the civil court the question of surplus land to be surrendered by<\/p>\n
the   declarant   and   the   option   to   be   exercised   by   him   in   that   behalf   would   arise.     The<\/p>\n
Taluk Land Board was directed to re-consider the case after the disposal of the appeals<\/p>\n
pending before the civil court.\n<\/p>\n
\n
         5.     Challenging   the  order  dated   17.11.1982,  some   of  the   claimants    had     filed<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No. 2982 of 1984.   That revision was also disposed of on   11.01.1988   holding<\/p>\n
that the extent of 3 acres and 47.25 cents claimed by the claimants cannot be  deleted<\/p>\n
from   the   total   extent     as     all   the   transactions     in   favour   of   the     claimants     are   after<\/p>\n
C.R.P. Nos.   1290 OF 2000 & 1730 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
01.01.1970 .  Accordingly, C.R.P.No. 2982 of 2004 was dismissed.<\/p>\n
         6.   After the decision of the appeals by the Sub Court, Palakkad, in respect of<\/p>\n
the   disputes   between   the   declarant   and   Madhavan   Nair,   Second   Appeal   No.   174   of<\/p>\n
1990   was   filed   by   the   declarant   before   the   High   Court.     The   High   Court   as   per   the<\/p>\n
judgment     dated 09.12.1997 reversed  the  decree of  the  lower appellate court and   a<\/p>\n
decision was rendered in favour of the declarant  in respect of 2.46 acres of land.<\/p>\n
         7.    After  the  disposal of  the  Second Appeal, the Taluk  Land Board considered<\/p>\n
the matter afresh.   At that  time, the   declarant put forward a new   contention that   an<\/p>\n
extent of 4.52 acres of land   was gifted by him in favour of his minor children in the year<\/p>\n
1968.  The Taluk Land Board rejected this contention put forward by the declarant that<\/p>\n
the extent of     land covered by the gift deed should be excluded from the ceiling limit.<\/p>\n
The Taluk Land Board held that  this is a new claim put forward by the declarant and  as<\/p>\n
per   the   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   in   Revision   earlier,   such     a   plea   cannot   be<\/p>\n
entertained.\n<\/p>\n
\n
         8.     The   Taluk   Land   Board   found,   as   per   the   order   dated   11-4-2000,     that   an<\/p>\n
extent of  7.32 acres   of land was taken possession of by the Tahsildar.    An extent of<\/p>\n
one acre in Sy.No. 18\/5 was acquired by the Government and that extent of land was<\/p>\n
taken as  surrender of excess land by the Taluk Land Board.  As per the order passed<\/p>\n
by  the   Taluk   Land   Board,   the   declarant   was   directed   to   surrender   an   extent   of     8.32<\/p>\n
acres   .     The   order   of   the   Taluk   Land   Board   would   indicate   that   the   said   extent   was<\/p>\n
already  taken  possession of.\n<\/p>\n
\nC.R.P. Nos.   1290 OF 2000 & 1730 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
          9.   The   learned   counsel   for   the   declarant   submitted   that   the   Taluk   Land   Board<\/p>\n
should have considered the contention put forward   by the declarant   that an extent of<\/p>\n
4.52 acres of land was gifted to his minor children and should have  deleted this extent<\/p>\n
from the ceiling area.  The gift deed is dated 17.11.1968.   The learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner submitted that one of the donees had attained majority as on 01.01.1970 and<\/p>\n
therefore,   the   gift   deed   is   valid.         I   am   not   inclined     to   accept   this   contention       put<\/p>\n
forward   by   the   learned   counsel.     Section     84(1A)     of   the   Act   provides   that<\/p>\n
notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   sub-section     (1)   of   Section   84   ,   or   in   any<\/p>\n
judgment, decree or order  of any court , any voluntary transfer  effected by means of a<\/p>\n
gift deed  executed during the period commencing  on the first day of  January 1970 and<\/p>\n
ending with   the 5th  day of   November, 1974 by a person   owning or holding   land   in<\/p>\n
excess of  the ceiling area in favour of his  son or daughter or  son or   daughter of his<\/p>\n
predeceased son  or daughter shall not be deemed to be  or ever to have been invalid,<\/p>\n
provided that the extent of land comprised in the gift deed does not  exceed the ceiling<\/p>\n
area and  if it so exceeds to  the extent of the ceiling area.   The proviso to sub-section<\/p>\n
(1A)   provides   that   the   said   sub-section   shall   not   apply   to   a     transfer     in   favour   of   a<\/p>\n
person  who was an unmarried minor on the first day of January, 1970.  In the case on<\/p>\n
hand, the gift deed was  not executed during the period mentioned  in sub-section (1A).<\/p>\n
It   is   also   not   proved   that   as   on     01.01.1970   ,   the   donee   had   attained   majority.     The<\/p>\n
Taluk Land Board was  justified in rejecting the contention put forward by the petitioner.<\/p>\n
         10.   The learned counsel for the declarant submitted that the extent covered by<\/p>\n
the gift deed could still be excluded from the  purview of the ceiling case in view of the<\/p>\n
Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005  (Act 21 of 2006) (hereinafter referred to<\/p>\n
C.R.P. Nos.   1290 OF 2000 & 1730 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
as     Act   21   of   2006  .)     By   the   Amendment     Act<\/a>,     Section   7E<\/a>     and   sub-section   (4)   of<\/p>\n
Section 84<\/a> were inserted.  The provisions so inserted read as follows:<\/p>\n
                  “7E.     Certain   persons   who   acquired   lands   to   be   deemed<\/p>\n
         tenants:  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in S.74  or<\/p>\n
         S. 84<\/a>   or in any other provisions of this Act, or in any other law for the<\/p>\n
         time   being   in   force   or   in   any   contract,   custom   or   usage,   or   in   any<\/p>\n
         judgment,  decree   or  order   of   any   court,  tribunal  or  other   authority  ,  a<\/p>\n
         person     who   at   the   commencement   of   the   Kerala   Land   Reforms<\/p>\n
         (Amendment  )Act,  2005, is in  possession  of  any    land, not  exceeding<\/p>\n
         four hectares  in extent,  acquired by him or his predecessor-in-interest<\/p>\n
         by   way   of  purchase   or  otherwise     on   payment   of     consideration   from<\/p>\n
         any person holding land  in excess of the ceiling area, during the period<\/p>\n
         between   the   date   of   the  commencement   of   the   Kerala   Land   Reforms<\/p>\n
         Act, 1963 (1 of 1964) , and the date of commencement   of the Kerala<\/p>\n
         Land   Reforms   (Amendment   )Act,   2005,   shall   be   deemed   to     be   a<\/p>\n
         tenant”.\n<\/p>\n
\n
Amendment of S. 84<\/a>:\n<\/p>\n
\n
         “(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-ss (1), (1A) or (2), or in<\/p>\n
         any judgment, decree, or order of any court, tribunal  or other authority,<\/p>\n
         no acquisition of land referred to in  S.7E shall be deemed to be invalid,<\/p>\n
         or ever to have been invalid by reason only  of the fact that the land so<\/p>\n
         acquired   was   found included as, or forming part of, the land liable to<\/p>\n
         be  surrendered  by the transferor  as excess land under the provisions<\/p>\n
         of this Act and no suit or other proceedings   including proceedings   for<\/p>\n
         eviction   relating   to   the   said   land   shall   be   instituted,   maintained   or<\/p>\n
         continued in any court or tribunal against any person who  is a deemed<\/p>\n
         tenant   under S.7E and every such   suit or proceedings   pending shall<\/p>\n
         stand abated.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
                   Provided   that   no   ceiling   cases   wherein   excess   land   has   been<\/p>\n
C.R.P. Nos.   1290 OF 2000 & 1730 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
        physically taken over and distributed to landless  labourers  or reserved<\/p>\n
        for public  purposes  as  provided in this Act shall be re-opened.<\/p>\n
                 Provided  further  that   if the    Taluk  Land Board  is satisfied   that<\/p>\n
        the transfer of land made by a person, in possession of excess land is<\/p>\n
        calculated to defeat the ceiling provisions, it may  take into  account  the<\/p>\n
        land so transferred in determining his ceiling area, and may direct him<\/p>\n
        to surrender such  extent of land held or possessed  by him.<\/p>\n
                 Provided also that no ceiling cases or proceedings in which any<\/p>\n
        land   has   already   been   surrendered   by   or   assigned   from   a   person   as<\/p>\n
        excess   land     before   the   commencement   of   the   Kerala   Land   Reforms<\/p>\n
        (Amendment) Act, 2005, shall be re-opened. ”\n<\/p>\n
\n
11.  In order  to  attract  Section 7E<\/a> and  to hold that  a person is a deemed  tenant  , the<\/p>\n
following conditions  must be satisfied:\n<\/p>\n
\n
        (a)  At the commencement of the  Amendment Act<\/a>, 2005, the person concerned<\/p>\n
is in possession of land not exceeding 4 acres in extent;<\/p>\n
        (b)   the said land was acquired by him  or by his predecessor-in-interest from a<\/p>\n
person holding land in excess  of ceiling area;\n<\/p>\n
\n
        (c)  such acquisition by him  was by way of purchase or otherwise;<\/p>\n
\n
        (d)  such acquisition must be  on payment of consideration; and<\/p>\n
        (e) the acquisition must be between the date of commencement of   the Kerala<\/p>\n
Land   Reforms   Act   1963     (Act   1   of   1964)   and   the   date   of   commencement   of<\/p>\n
Amendment Act<\/a>, 2005 (Act 21 of 2006).\n<\/p>\n
\nA gift deed executed by the declarant would not come within the purview of Section 7E<\/a>.<\/p>\n
A specific condition stipulated in Sec. 7E is that the acquisition must be on payment of<\/p>\n
consideration.     Learned   counsel   for   the   declarant   submitted   that     a   gift   deed   is<\/p>\n
C.R.P. Nos.   1290 OF 2000 & 1730 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
supported by  consideration  and the  consideration  is love and affection;  and therefore,<\/p>\n
even a gift deed is covered by Section 7E<\/a>.  I am not inclined to  accept this contention.<\/p>\n
The   expression   used   is  payment   of   consideration.       Evidently,   there   cannot   be   any<\/p>\n
`payment’ in the matter  of love and affection.   The purpose sought to be achieved  by<\/p>\n
the introduction of  Section 7E<\/a> is to protect  bonafide  transfers for consideration where<\/p>\n
a   third   party   has   come   into   possession   of   lands,   acquired   by   him   from   a<\/p>\n
declarant\/assessee .  It is not intended to protect donees of declarants\/assesses and to<\/p>\n
exclude   the   lands     covered   by   such     gift   deeds   from   the   purview   of   the   ceiling<\/p>\n
provisions.\n<\/p>\n
\n
12.   There is yet another reason to   reject the contention put forward by the declarant.<\/p>\n
On a careful  analysis of Sec. 7E, I am of the view that the person who is entitled to the<\/p>\n
benefit  of   Section   7<\/a>  E  must   be  a   stranger     and   not  a   member   of  the   statutory  family<\/p>\n
which holds  lands in excess of the ceiling area.  The Kerala Land Reforms Act provides<\/p>\n
for  the  ceiling   area in respect  of adult  unmarried person,   family  consisting  of    a sole<\/p>\n
surviving member, family consisting of two or more but not more than five members , a<\/p>\n
family consisting of more than   five members and   any other person other than a joint<\/p>\n
family.  Section 82<\/a> of the Act provides for Ceiling area .  Sub-sections (1 ) and  (2 )  of<\/p>\n
Section 82<\/a> are as under:\n<\/p>\n
\n
         “”82.  Ceiling area:- (1)  The  ceiling area of land  shall be ,-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         (a)  in the case of  an adult unmarried person or a family consisting of a<\/p>\n
         sole surviving member, five standard acres, so however that the ceiling<\/p>\n
         area shall not be less than six and more than seven and a half acres in<\/p>\n
         extent;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (b)  in the case of a family consisting of two or more, but not more than<\/p>\n
         five   members,   ten   standard   acres,   so   however   that   the   ceiling   area<\/p>\n
         shall not be less than twelve and more than fifteen acres in extent.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
C.R.P. Nos.   1290 OF 2000 & 1730 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
         (c)   In the case of a family consisting of more  than five members, ten<\/p>\n
         standard   acres   increased   by   one   standard   acre   for   each   member   in<\/p>\n
         excess of five, so however that the ceiling area shall not be less than<\/p>\n
         twelve and more than twenty acres in extent; and<\/p>\n
         (d)     in   the   case   of   any   other   person,   other   than   a   joint   family,   ten<\/p>\n
         standard acres, so however that the ceiling area shall not be less than<\/p>\n
         twelve and more than fifteen acres in extent<\/p>\n
         (2)   For   the   purposes   of   this   Chapter,   all   the   lands   owned     or   held<\/p>\n
         individually by the members of a family or   jointly by some or all of the<\/p>\n
         members  of such  family shall be deemed  to be owned   or  held by  the<\/p>\n
         family. ”\n<\/p>\n
\nSection 2(1)<\/a> of the Act   defines  “adult unmarried person” as an unmarried person who<\/p>\n
has attained 18 years of   age.  Section 2(14)<\/a>  of the Act defines “family”  as  husband,<\/p>\n
wife and their unmarried  minor children or  such of  them as  exist.    “Joint family”    is<\/p>\n
defined   under   section   2<\/a>   (20)   of   the   Act   as     a   Hindu   undivided   family,   a<\/p>\n
Marumakkathayam   tarwad     or   tavazhi,   an     Aliasanthana   Kudumba   or   Kavaru   or   a<\/p>\n
Nambudiri Illam.       In the case of a family, the ceiling area is fixed taking into account<\/p>\n
the number of members of the family.       When such ceiling area is fixed, there cannot<\/p>\n
be any further   benefit given to such family by excluding the property sold   or gifted or<\/p>\n
otherwise   demised     by   a   member   of   that   family   in   favour   of   another   member   of   that<\/p>\n
family.    If it were to be held so,  the  provisions of the  Kerala Land Reforms Act  could<\/p>\n
be   easily  defeated.     Such  a   transaction   is   not   sought   to   be   protected   by  Section   7E<\/a>.<\/p>\n
What   is   intended   is   to   protect     bonafide   purchaser   for   value.     The   second   proviso   to<\/p>\n
sub-section   (4)   of   Section     84<\/a>     introduced   by   the   Amendment   Act<\/a>   would   make   the<\/p>\n
position  clear.  As per the second proviso, if  the  Taluk Land Board is satisfied  that the<\/p>\n
transfer   of     land   is   intended   to   defeat   the   ceiling   provisions,   such   land   shall   also   be<\/p>\n
included   for   determining   the   ceiling   area.       I   am   of   the   view   that     a   member   of   the<\/p>\n
C.R.P. Nos.   1290 OF 2000 & 1730 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                                       9<\/span><\/p>\n
statutory family who purchased land from another member of the statutory family, is not<\/p>\n
entitled to claim the  benefit of Section 7E<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
\n
         13.   From the proceedings it is seen that  in respect of 3 acres  and 47.25 cents,<\/p>\n
strangers     had   preferred   claim   petitions.     In   the   revisions   filed   by   them,     their<\/p>\n
contentions were rejected only on the ground that the  acquisition was after 01.01.1970.<\/p>\n
Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   submitted   that     the   Taluk   Land   Board     may       be<\/p>\n
directed to consider the question  whether the extent  of 3 acres and 47.25 cents  could<\/p>\n
be excluded from  the ceiling  case,  the  land being  those    held  by  the  strangers  under<\/p>\n
registered   assignment   deeds   executed   by   the   declarant.       Though   it   is   stated   in   the<\/p>\n
order dated 11.04.2000 that an extent of 7. 32 acres of land was taken possession of by<\/p>\n
the Tahsildar and an extent of 1 acre  has been adjusted from  out of the land acquired<\/p>\n
by   the   Government   ,   it   is   relevant   to   note   that   as   per   the     subsequent   order   dated<\/p>\n
19.12.2000 passed by the Taluk Land Board,   the Tahsildar was directed to re-convey<\/p>\n
to the declarant  an extent of 8.32 acres  which was already taken possession of  by the<\/p>\n
Tahsildar.    It   is    true  that  the   third  proviso  to  Section  84<\/a>  (4) of  the  Act  states  that  no<\/p>\n
ceiling   cases     or   proceedings   in   which   any   land   has   already   been   surrendered   by   or<\/p>\n
assigned from a person as excess land  before the commencement of the Kerala Land<\/p>\n
Reforms   (Amendment)   Act,   2005,   shall   be   re-opened.     But   in   the   present   case,   the<\/p>\n
Taluk   Land   Board   has   passed   an   order   dated   19.12.2000   directing   the   Tahsildar     to<\/p>\n
reconvey   to   the   declarant   an   extent   of   8.32   acres   of   land.     Though   the   State   filed<\/p>\n
revision against the order dated  19.12.2000, no stay  petition was filed and evidently no<\/p>\n
stay was granted.   Therefore, I am of the view that  the third proviso to Section 84<\/a> (4) of<\/p>\n
the Act would not stand in the way of a direction being issued to the Taluk Land Board<\/p>\n
to   consider   the   question   whether   the   extent   of     3   acres   47.25   cents     covered   by  the<\/p>\n
C.R.P. Nos.   1290 OF 2000 & 1730 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                                      10<\/span><\/p>\n
assignment deeds executed by the declarant   could be excluded from the ceiling area.<\/p>\n
The   Taluk   Land   Board   shall   issue   notices   to   all   the   claimants   who   had   filed     claim<\/p>\n
petitions earlier and who claimed  under registered documents executed before the date<\/p>\n
of commencement of the   Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment )Act 2005 .       The Taluk<\/p>\n
Land   Board   shall   dispose   of     the   case     in   respect   of   3   acres   and   47.25   cents   as<\/p>\n
expeditiously as possible, after hearing all the persons concerned.<\/p>\n
         14.     The   order   dated   19-12-2000   passed   by   the   Taluk   Land   Board,   which   is<\/p>\n
challenged by the State in C.R.P.No. 1730 of 2003, is wholly without jurisdiction.   The<\/p>\n
Taluk  Land Board had earlier disposed of  the case as per the order dated 11-4-2000.<\/p>\n
That   order   was   challenged   by   the   declarant   in   C.R.P.   No.   1290   of   2000.     The   High<\/p>\n
Court had granted only an order of stay in C.R.P. No. 1290 of 2000 and even that stay<\/p>\n
order   was   confined   to   an   extent   of   4.   52   acres.     The   Taluk   Land   Board   erroneously<\/p>\n
thought that the High Court had finally disposed of C.R.P. No. 1290 of 2000.   On that<\/p>\n
erroneous   impression,   the   Taluk   Land   Board,   as   per   the   order   dated   19-12-2000,<\/p>\n
exempted the extent of 4.52 acres from the ceiling area.  C.R.P.No. 1730 of 2003 filed<\/p>\n
by the State is liable to be allowed and the order dated 19-12-2000 passed by the Taluk<\/p>\n
Land Board is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\nIn the result:\n<\/p>\n
\n
         (i)      C.R.P.No. 1290 of 2000 is partly allowed and the order dated 11.04.2000<\/p>\n
is modified to the extent that the Taluk Land Board shall consider the question whether<\/p>\n
the claimants who preferred the  claim petitions earlier in respect of  3 acres 47.25 cents<\/p>\n
would be entitled to the benefit of Section 7E<\/a> of Act 21 of 2006 and whether that much<\/p>\n
extent of land is liable to be excluded from the ceiling case. The Taluk Land Board shall<\/p>\n
C.R.P. Nos.   1290 OF 2000 & 1730 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                             11<\/span><\/p>\n
issue notice to the declarant as well as the  claimants and afford an opportunity of being<\/p>\n
heard to them.   The lands shall be inspected and verified with relevant documents by<\/p>\n
the authorised officer.\n<\/p>\n
\n
       (ii)     The finding  of the Taluk  Land   Board that the declarant   and his statutory<\/p>\n
family are not entitled  to claim any exclusion  in respect of 4.52 acres of land covered<\/p>\n
by the gift deed is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\n
       (iii)     Excluding the extent of 3 acres 47.25 cents, the Taluk Land Board will be<\/p>\n
free to take possession of the  balance extent.\n<\/p>\n
\n
       (iv)      C.R.P.No. 1730 of 2003 filed by the State is allowed and the order dated<\/p>\n
19-12-2000 is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                                                          K.T. SANKARAN,<\/p>\n
                                                                                JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
\n
lk<\/p>\n
C.R.P. Nos.   1290 OF 2000 & 1730 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                          12<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                         K.T. SANKARAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
                                              ………………………………………………..<\/p>\n
                                                     C.R.P.  Nos.   1290 OF 2000<\/p>\n
                                                             & 1730 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                            …………………………………………………<\/p>\n
                                              Dated this the  21st November, 2007<\/p>\n
                                                                  O R D E R<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.Cdhellapan Nair vs Taluk Land Board on 21 November, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP No. 1290 of 2000(G) 1. K.CDHELLAPAN NAIR … Petitioner Vs 1. TALUK LAND BOARD … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN Dated :21\/11\/2007 O R D […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-249488","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Cdhellapan Nair vs Taluk Land Board on 21 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-cdhellapan-nair-vs-taluk-land-board-on-21-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Cdhellapan Nair vs Taluk Land Board on 21 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-cdhellapan-nair-vs-taluk-land-board-on-21-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-04T04:59:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-cdhellapan-nair-vs-taluk-land-board-on-21-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-cdhellapan-nair-vs-taluk-land-board-on-21-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Cdhellapan Nair vs Taluk Land Board on 21 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-04T04:59:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-cdhellapan-nair-vs-taluk-land-board-on-21-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":3289,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-cdhellapan-nair-vs-taluk-land-board-on-21-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-cdhellapan-nair-vs-taluk-land-board-on-21-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-cdhellapan-nair-vs-taluk-land-board-on-21-november-2007\",\"name\":\"K.Cdhellapan Nair vs Taluk Land Board on 21 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-04T04:59:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-cdhellapan-nair-vs-taluk-land-board-on-21-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-cdhellapan-nair-vs-taluk-land-board-on-21-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-cdhellapan-nair-vs-taluk-land-board-on-21-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Cdhellapan Nair vs Taluk Land Board on 21 November, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K.Cdhellapan Nair vs Taluk Land Board on 21 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-cdhellapan-nair-vs-taluk-land-board-on-21-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Cdhellapan Nair vs Taluk Land Board on 21 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-cdhellapan-nair-vs-taluk-land-board-on-21-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-04T04:59:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-cdhellapan-nair-vs-taluk-land-board-on-21-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-cdhellapan-nair-vs-taluk-land-board-on-21-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Cdhellapan Nair vs Taluk Land Board on 21 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-04T04:59:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-cdhellapan-nair-vs-taluk-land-board-on-21-november-2007"},"wordCount":3289,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-cdhellapan-nair-vs-taluk-land-board-on-21-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-cdhellapan-nair-vs-taluk-land-board-on-21-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-cdhellapan-nair-vs-taluk-land-board-on-21-november-2007","name":"K.Cdhellapan Nair vs Taluk Land Board on 21 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-04T04:59:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-cdhellapan-nair-vs-taluk-land-board-on-21-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-cdhellapan-nair-vs-taluk-land-board-on-21-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-cdhellapan-nair-vs-taluk-land-board-on-21-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Cdhellapan Nair vs Taluk Land Board on 21 November, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249488","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=249488"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249488\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=249488"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=249488"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=249488"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}