{"id":86563,"date":"2008-03-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankajakshi-amma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008"},"modified":"2016-09-11T04:46:15","modified_gmt":"2016-09-10T23:16:15","slug":"pankajakshi-amma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankajakshi-amma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008","title":{"rendered":"Pankajakshi Amma vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Pankajakshi Amma vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP No. 1220 of 2000(B)\n\n\n\n1. PANKAJAKSHI AMMA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN\n\n Dated :26\/03\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                                        K.T. SANKARAN, J.\n                 ...................................................................................\n                   C.R.P. Nos. 1220, 1420 and 1662 OF 2000\n                 ...................................................................................\n                                 Dated this the 26th March, 2008\n\n                                                O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
      C.R.P.Nos. 1220 and 1662 of 2000 arise out of S.M. No.994 of 1976 on the file<\/p>\n
of the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad,                    while C.R.P.No. 1420 of 2000 arises out of<\/p>\n
S.M.No. 993 of 1976 on the file of the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad.                               Since common<\/p>\n
questions are involved in these revisions, they are being disposed of by this common<\/p>\n
order.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   Suo motu proceedings were initiated as S.M.No. 994 of 1976 showing<\/p>\n
Pazhaniswamy Kounder as the assessee. The Taluk Land Board passed an order<\/p>\n
dated 19.11.1976 holding that the assessee, Pazhaniswamy Kounder held excess land<\/p>\n
and that he is liable to surrender an extent of 28.75 acres of land. Challenging the order<\/p>\n
passed by the Taluk Land Board dated 19.11.1976, C.R.P.No. 5749 of 1976 was filed.<\/p>\n
As per order dated 08.08.1978, this Court set aside the order of the Taluk Land Board<\/p>\n
on the ground that no intimation from the Land Board under Section 85(7) of the<\/p>\n
Kerala Land Reforms Act was obtained. It was also held that the Taluk Land Board<\/p>\n
would be free to take action under Section 85 (7) of the Act if and when intimation was<\/p>\n
received.    There was another revision, viz.                     C.R.P. No. 5752 of 1976 filed by<\/p>\n
Damodaran Nair, assignee, Pazhaniswamy Kounder. That Revision was allowed on<\/p>\n
04.12.1979 on the same ground on which C.R.P.No. 5749 of 1976 was allowed.<\/p>\n
Thereafter, the Taluk         Land Board passed the present order dated 04.04.2000 in<\/p>\n
S.M.No. 994 of 1976. It is stated in the order thus:\n<\/p>\n
C.R.P. Nos. 1220, 1420 and 1662 OF 2000<\/p>\n
                                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
        “On going through the         file, it is seen   that the Land Board,<\/p>\n
        Thiruvananthapuram          in     the    proceedings     LB.6.48610\/76<\/p>\n
        K.Dis.dt.11.07.76 which was received in the office on 20.8.76 had<\/p>\n
        accorded sanction to initiate        suo moto proceedings against the<\/p>\n
        assessee Sri.R.S.Pazhaniswamy Kounder to determine the extent and<\/p>\n
        identity of land to be surrendered. But that fact is found to be omitted<\/p>\n
        to bring to the notice of the Hon’ble High Court in time which resulted in<\/p>\n
        the above judgments.       In persuance of the judgment dt. 8.8.78 and<\/p>\n
        4.12.78 in the CRP’s 5749\/76 and CRP.5752\/76 respectively, the case<\/p>\n
        was re-opened and revised draft statement with notice dt. 9.5.79 was<\/p>\n
        issued to Sri R.S. Pazhaniswamy Kounder (2)Sri Damodaran Nair, (3)<\/p>\n
        Smt. Kunhilakshmi (4) Shri Rajeev (5) Shri Subramanian for appearing<\/p>\n
        before    the   Taluk    Land    Board    on  30.05.79    with   relevant<\/p>\n
        document\/evidence in support of their claim. The Taluk Land Board<\/p>\n
        again issued notice to the above claimants on 24.9.99 and 10.1.2000.”<\/p>\n
        3.   After hearing the parties, the Taluk Land Board       did not independently<\/p>\n
discuss the contentions put forward by the assessee or the claimants but simply<\/p>\n
decided to retain the earlier order dated 19.11.1976 in S.M.No.994 of 1976.<\/p>\n
The order dated 19.11.1976 was set aside by the High Court on the sole ground that<\/p>\n
sanction from the Land Board was not obtained. The Taluk Land Board was not<\/p>\n
justified in simply reviving the earlier order without considering the contentions put<\/p>\n
forward by the assessee and the persons who put forward the claims.<\/p>\n
        4.   In S.M.No. 993 of 1976, Kumaraswamy Kounder, who is the brother of<\/p>\n
Pazhaniswamy Kounder, is the assessee.           In S.M.No. 993 of 1976, the Taluk Land<\/p>\n
Board had passed an order dated 19.11.1976 against the legal representatives of<\/p>\n
C.R.P. Nos. 1220, 1420 and 1662 OF 2000<\/p>\n
                                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
Kumaraswamy Kounder, who expired on 29.03.1976. The legal representatives of<\/p>\n
Kumaraswamy Kounder challenged the order dated 19.11.1976 in C.R.P.No. 5771 of<\/p>\n
1976. This Court as per order dated 22.08.1978 allowed the Revision and held that<\/p>\n
the proceedings under Section 85 of        the Kerala Land Reforms Act      cannot be<\/p>\n
continued against the legal heirs of the assessee after his death. It was held that the<\/p>\n
proceedings    under Section 87 of Act     should be initiated against the legal heirs.<\/p>\n
Subsequently, in view of introduction of Section 85(6A) of the Act, the proceedings<\/p>\n
were revived after obtaining sanction from the Land Board dated 19.06.1991.        The<\/p>\n
Taluk Land Board, by final order dated 17.05.2000 held that the assessee is liable to<\/p>\n
surrender an extent of 14.07 acres . This order is under challenge in C.R.P.No. 1420<\/p>\n
of 2000 filed by Senthilkumar, the legal representative of Kumaraswamy Kounder.<\/p>\n
The Taluk Land Board did not independently consider the contentions put forward by<\/p>\n
the assessee. A contention raised that an extent of 12.37 acres was ordered to be<\/p>\n
resumed in favour of the landlord was rejected on the basis of the authorised officer’s<\/p>\n
report wherein it was stated that the land continued to be in possession and enjoyment<\/p>\n
of the assessee as on 01.01.1970.\n<\/p>\n
       5. C.R.P.No. 1662 of 2000 is filed by the claimants in S.M.No. 994 of 1976<\/p>\n
challenging the order dated 04.04.2000.\n<\/p>\n
       6.   The properties involved in S.M.Nos. 993 and 994 of 1976 belonged to<\/p>\n
Yakkanath Mannakkattu Gopalan Unni. The properties were outstanding on Kanam<\/p>\n
right in favour of T.S. Veeraraghava Iyer. A lease was granted by Veeraraghava Iyer<\/p>\n
in favour of Pazhaniswamy Kounder           and his brother Kumaraswamy Kounder.<\/p>\n
Subsequently in the year 1976 as per document No. 344 of 1966, S.R.O. Palakkad,<\/p>\n
C.R.P. Nos. 1220, 1420 and 1662 OF 2000<\/p>\n
                                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
Pazhaniswamy Kounder and Kumaraswamy Kounder entered into a partition and the<\/p>\n
properties were divided.    It is stated by the petitioners in C.R.P.No.1220 of 2000 that<\/p>\n
an extent of 12.21 acres of land was assigned by Pazhaniswamy Kounder in favour of<\/p>\n
Damodaran Nair and his brother Sreedharan Nair as per document No.1624 of 1966,<\/p>\n
S.R.O., Palakkad. Sreedharan Nair released his right in favour of Damodaran Nair as<\/p>\n
per document No. 654 of 1969, S.R.O., Palakkad. It is also stated that jenmi assigned<\/p>\n
jenmam right in favour of Damodaran Nair as per document No. 3270 of 1967, S.R.O.,<\/p>\n
Palakkad.     The wife of Damodaran Nair is the first petitioner in C.R.P.No.1220 of 2000.<\/p>\n
It is also stated that Pazhaniswamy Kounder assigned an extent of 7 acres of land in<\/p>\n
favour of Subramanian, the second petitioner in C.R.P. 1220 of 2000 as per document<\/p>\n
No.1934 of 1968, S.R.O., Palakkad.\n<\/p>\n
        7. It is revealed from the records produced before the Taluk Land Board that<\/p>\n
jenmi Gopalan Unni had filed Application No.520 of 1965 on the file of the Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal, Palakkad against Veeraraghava Iyer           and Kumaraswamy Kounder for<\/p>\n
resumption of lands. As per order dated 30.11.1970, the Land Tribunal allowed the<\/p>\n
application for resumption in respect of an extent of 12.37 acres . Stating that the<\/p>\n
actual possession of the land was not obtained by jenmi, though he belatedly complied<\/p>\n
with the direction to deposit solatium, jenmi Gopalan Unni filed O.S.No. 21 of 1977 on<\/p>\n
the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad against Kumaraswamy Kounder and others for<\/p>\n
recovery of possession of the properties ordered to be resumed. O.S.No. 21 of 1977<\/p>\n
was decreed on 18.01.1982 and the extent ordered to be resumed, except an extent of<\/p>\n
one acre in Sy.No.484\/2A4 of Elappully village, was ordered to be recovered from the<\/p>\n
defendants. The judgment and decree in O.S.No. 21 of 1977 was challenged by<\/p>\n
C.R.P. Nos. 1220, 1420 and 1662 OF 2000<\/p>\n
                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
defendant Nos. 5 to 9 before the High Court in A.S.No.138 of 1982. The appeal was<\/p>\n
dismissed on 16.01.1990.. In paragraph No.5 of the judgment in A.S.No. 138 of 1982,<\/p>\n
it was held thus:\n<\/p>\n
       “If we act on Ext.A2, it has to be presumed that the plaintiff got<\/p>\n
       possession of the property.       At least, the plaintiff gets title to the<\/p>\n
       property and on that basis, plaintiff can recover the property from the<\/p>\n
       legal representatives of the first defendant, who are parties to Ext.A2.<\/p>\n
       The submission of the counsel that if the solatium amount has not been<\/p>\n
       paid within thirty days, the order of resumption will stand cancelled,<\/p>\n
       cannot be taken as a rule of the thumb because several circumstances<\/p>\n
       have to be considered before accepting such a contention. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       8. It was also noticed by the High Court that as per Ext. A1 document produced<\/p>\n
in the case, the first defendant in the suit and the plaintiff had filed a joint application<\/p>\n
under Order XXIII Rule 3 wherein it was stated that the property was put in the<\/p>\n
possession of the jenmi. The Taluk Land Board in the orders impugned in both the<\/p>\n
S.M. cases have not taken into account the order passed by the Land Tribunal in the<\/p>\n
application for resumption, the judgment in O.S.No.21 of 1977 and the judgment in<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 138 of 1982, though these documents are seen in the files. The report of the<\/p>\n
authorised officer cannot be taken as overriding the finding of the Land Tribunal and<\/p>\n
the decision of the civil court and which was confirmed by the High Court. If title has<\/p>\n
already been vested in the landlord by the order of resumption, it cannot be stated that<\/p>\n
the assessee continued to retain title so as to make that land liable for being<\/p>\n
considered as excess land.     Unless it is shown that the jenmi lost title vested in him by<\/p>\n
virtue of the order of resumption, the said land cannot be included in the account of the<\/p>\n
C.R.P. Nos. 1220, 1420 and 1662 OF 2000<\/p>\n
                                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
assessee. The Taluk Land Board has not properly considered this question. I am of<\/p>\n
the view that the order is liable to be set aside on that short ground.<\/p>\n
       9. Petitioners in C.R.P.No. 1662 of 2000 have stated in the Memorandum of<\/p>\n
Revision that they produced before the Taluk Land Board several documents including<\/p>\n
purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal in order to substantiate their claims,<\/p>\n
but the Taluk Land Board did not consider the case put forward by them. On a perusal<\/p>\n
of the files, such documents are not seen.         However, the fact remains     that the<\/p>\n
contentions raised by the petitioners in C.R.P.No.1662 of 2000 were not considered by<\/p>\n
the Taluk Land Board. Therefore, C.R.P.No. 1662 of 2000 is also liable to be allowed.<\/p>\n
       10. There is yet another reason as to why the matter should be considered<\/p>\n
afresh by the Taluk Land Board. By the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005<\/p>\n
(Act 21 of 2006), Section 7E and Section 84(4) were inserted. The aforesaid Sections<\/p>\n
are quoted below for easy reference:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                “”7E.   Certain persons who acquired lands to be deemed<\/p>\n
        tenants:–    Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in<\/p>\n
        section 74 or section 84 or in any other provisions of this Act, or in any<\/p>\n
        other law for the time being in force or in any contract, custom or<\/p>\n
        usage, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or<\/p>\n
        other authority, a person who at the commencement of the Kerala Land<\/p>\n
        Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005, is in possession of any land, not<\/p>\n
        exceeding four hectares in extent, acquired by him or his predecessor-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        in-interest by way of purchase or otherwise on payment of<\/p>\n
        consideration from any person holding land in excess of the ceiling<\/p>\n
        area; during the period between the date of the commencement of the<\/p>\n
        Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964), and the date of<\/p>\n
C.R.P. Nos. 1220, 1420 and 1662 OF 2000<\/p>\n
                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
      commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005,<\/p>\n
      shall be deemed to be a tenant.”\n<\/p>\n
      Section 84, sub-section (4):\n<\/p>\n
             “(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1), (1<\/p>\n
      A) or (2), or in any judgment, decree, or order of any court, tribunal or<\/p>\n
      other authority, no acquisition of land referred to in section 7E shall be<\/p>\n
      deemed to be invalid, or ever to have been invalid by reason only of the<\/p>\n
      fact that the land so acquired was found included as, or forming part of,<\/p>\n
      the land liable to be surrendered by the transferor as excess land under<\/p>\n
      the provisions of this Act and no suit or other proceedings including<\/p>\n
      proceedings for eviction relating to the said land shall be instituted,<\/p>\n
      maintained or continued in any court or tribunal against any person who<\/p>\n
      is a deemed tenant under section 7E and every such suit or<\/p>\n
      proceedings pending shall stand abated;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             Provided that, no ceiling cases wherein excess land has been<\/p>\n
      physically taken over and distributed to landless labourers or reserved<\/p>\n
      for public purposes as provided in this Act shall be reopened.<\/p>\n
             Provided further that if the Taluk Land Board is satisfied that the<\/p>\n
      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 to<\/p>\n
      surrender such extent of land held or possessed by him.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             Provided also that no ceiling cases or proceedings in which any<\/p>\n
      land has already been surrendered by, or assumed from, a person as<\/p>\n
      excess land before the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms<\/p>\n
      (Amendment) Act, 2005, shall be reopened.”\n<\/p>\n
C.R.P. Nos. 1220, 1420 and 1662 OF 2000<\/p>\n
                                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
        11. The first petitioner in C.R.P.No. 1220 of 2000 claims title in respect of 12<\/p>\n
acres 21 cents. It is her contention that part of this land is also included in the order of<\/p>\n
resumption and therefore the extent does not exceed four hectares.             The second<\/p>\n
petitioner in C.R.P.No.1220 of 2000, Subramanian claims an extent of 7 acres , which<\/p>\n
does not exceed the extent mentioned in Section 7E . Likewise the petitioners in<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No. 1662 of 2000 could also seek the benefit of Section 7E. The Taluk Land<\/p>\n
Board shall consider these aspects as well in the light of the Amendment Act 21 of<\/p>\n
2006 and arrive at a conclusion as to whether the petitioners are entitled to get the<\/p>\n
relief in the light of the provisions of law quoted above.<\/p>\n
        12. It is to be noted that the proceedings commenced in the year 1976. The<\/p>\n
order passed by the Taluk Land Board dated 19.11.1976 was set aside since no<\/p>\n
effective representation was made by the Government that sanction of the Land Board<\/p>\n
was obtained before passing the order.           The final order is now passed in the year<\/p>\n
2000. The fact remains that from 1976 to 2000, the matter was pending before the<\/p>\n
Taluk Land Board . This situation arose since correct information was not furnished to<\/p>\n
the High Court while dealing with the earlier Revisions. The petitioners are also to be<\/p>\n
blamed for not furnishing correct information to the High Court. The net result is that<\/p>\n
from 1976 to 2000, a final determination could not be made by the Taluk Land Board.<\/p>\n
This necessitates the Taluk Land Board to consider and dispose of S.M.Nos. 993 and<\/p>\n
994 of 1976 afresh, as expeditiously as possible, after hearing the parties and affording<\/p>\n
them an opportunity to produce documents and to adduce evidence.<\/p>\n
        For the aforesaid reasons, all these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The<\/p>\n
C.R.P. Nos. 1220, 1420 and 1662 OF 2000<\/p>\n
                                            9<\/span><\/p>\n
orders in S.M.Nos.993 and 994 of 1976 are set aside.        The Taluk Land Board is<\/p>\n
directed to consider and dispose of the matter afresh in the manner indicate above,<\/p>\n
after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties and affording them an<\/p>\n
opportunity to produce documents and to adduce evidence. All the contentions of the<\/p>\n
parties are left open to be considered by the Taluk Land Board. No order as to costs.<\/p>\n
                                                               K.T. SANKARAN,
\n                                                                    JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
lk<\/p>\n
C.R.P. Nos. 1220, 1420 and 1662 OF 2000<\/p>\n
                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
                                             K.T. SANKARAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
                                ………………………………………………..<\/p>\n
                               C.R.P. Nos. 1220, 1420 & 1662 OF 2000<\/p>\n
                                …………………………………………………
\n                                   Dated this the 26th March, 2008<\/p>\n
                                                    O R D E R<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Pankajakshi Amma vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP No. 1220 of 2000(B) 1. PANKAJAKSHI AMMA … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN Dated :26\/03\/2008 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-86563","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPankajakshi Amma vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008 - 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\/pankajakshi-amma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pankajakshi Amma vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankajakshi-amma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-10T23:16:15+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankajakshi-amma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankajakshi-amma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pankajakshi Amma vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-10T23:16:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankajakshi-amma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2488,\"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\\\/pankajakshi-amma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankajakshi-amma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankajakshi-amma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008\",\"name\":\"Pankajakshi Amma vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-10T23:16:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankajakshi-amma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankajakshi-amma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankajakshi-amma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pankajakshi Amma vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Pankajakshi Amma vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008 - 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\/pankajakshi-amma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pankajakshi Amma vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankajakshi-amma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-10T23:16:15+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankajakshi-amma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankajakshi-amma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pankajakshi Amma vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-10T23:16:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankajakshi-amma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008"},"wordCount":2488,"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\/pankajakshi-amma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankajakshi-amma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankajakshi-amma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008","name":"Pankajakshi Amma vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-10T23:16:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankajakshi-amma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankajakshi-amma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankajakshi-amma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pankajakshi Amma vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008"}]},{"@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\/86563","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=86563"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86563\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=86563"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=86563"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=86563"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}