{"id":88051,"date":"2010-10-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aravindakshan-vs-the-taluk-land-board-on-4-october-2010"},"modified":"2017-01-10T02:09:08","modified_gmt":"2017-01-09T20:39:08","slug":"aravindakshan-vs-the-taluk-land-board-on-4-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aravindakshan-vs-the-taluk-land-board-on-4-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Aravindakshan vs The Taluk Land Board on 4 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Aravindakshan vs The Taluk Land Board on 4 October, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP.No. 939 of 2005()\n\n\n1. ARAVINDAKSHAN, S\/O. LATE MUTHU,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD.\n\n3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR\n\n Dated :04\/10\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                    V.RAMKUMAR, J.\n              -------------------------------------\n          C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005\n             --------------------------------------\n        Dated this the 4th day of October, 2010\n\n                           ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
     The common revision petitioner in these revision<\/p>\n
petitions is one Aravindakshan who is the adopted son of<\/p>\n
one Muthu and his wife Rugmini. In C.R.P.No.939\/2005<\/p>\n
Aravindakshan challenges the order dated 18.8.2005 in<\/p>\n
SM.849\/76 passed by the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad. In<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.1203\/2005, Aravindakshan challenges an order<\/p>\n
dated 9.2.2000 in the said proceedings passed by the<\/p>\n
Taluk Land Board, Palakkad.\n<\/p>\n
     2.   The facts leading to the impugned orders can be<\/p>\n
summarised as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
          SM 849\/76 was the ceiling case of Muthu the<\/p>\n
father of Aravindakshan referred to above. This case had<\/p>\n
a checkered career.      Originally, the Taluk Land Board<\/p>\n
disposed of the case as per final order dated 10.3.1976.<\/p>\n
There    was     a    revision      filed     by   Muthu  as\n\nC.R.P.No.1653\/1976 before this Court.              This Court\n\n<\/pre>\n
disposed of the said C.R.P on 15.3.1978. The Taluk Land<\/p>\n
C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005
\n                                : 2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
Board, Palakkad then passed final orders on 6.9.1978.<\/p>\n
There was a writ petition filed before this Court as<\/p>\n
O.P.No.3856\/1978 which was disposed of on 17.10.1980.<\/p>\n
There was a partition suit before the Sub Court, Palakkad<\/p>\n
as O.S.No.366\/1978 involving the revision petitioner.<\/p>\n
After the decisions of the Civil Court, the Taluk Land Board<\/p>\n
again passed a final order dated 24.9.1982 excluding<\/p>\n
certain properties said to have been allotted to the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner Aravindakshan in the partition and<\/p>\n
excluding certain extent of land from the account of<\/p>\n
Muthu, the assessee who was the foster father of<\/p>\n
Aravindakshan.         Again there was C.R.P. No.2861\/1982<\/p>\n
before this Court. The said revision was disposed of by<\/p>\n
this Court on 31.7.1987.        The Taluk Land Board again<\/p>\n
passed      final   orders    on  13.10.1987 against   which<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.1850\/1987 was filed before this Court. The said<\/p>\n
C.R.P was disposed of on 22.8.1989. Thereafter, as per<\/p>\n
final order dated 20.4.1993, the Taluk Land Board held<\/p>\n
that the total extent of land held by the assessee Muthu<\/p>\n
C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005
\n                                 : 3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
was 26.25 acres. After deducting 10.98 acres being the<\/p>\n
half share of the properties covered by the decree in the<\/p>\n
partition suit allotted to Aravindakshan, the Taluk Land<\/p>\n
Board held that the total extent of land held by the<\/p>\n
assessee Muthu was 15.67 acres from which one acre<\/p>\n
qualified for exemption under Section 81 of the Kerala<\/p>\n
Land Reforms Act.            Another extent of 42 cents was<\/p>\n
excluded as land in the possession of others. The ceiling<\/p>\n
area applicable to the family consisting of two members<\/p>\n
was found to be 12 acres. After excluding the 1 acre and<\/p>\n
42 cents referred to above, the Taluk Land Board directed<\/p>\n
the family of Muthu to surrender 2.25 acres.         In the<\/p>\n
meanwhile, Muthu, the assessee died on 4.5.1990.<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.1881\/1993 was filed by Rugmini, the widow of<\/p>\n
Muthu challenging the final order dated 20.4.1993. As per<\/p>\n
order dated 29.10.1999, this Court partly allowed the<\/p>\n
revision holding that the total extent of land held by the<\/p>\n
family after deducting 10.98 acres being the half share<\/p>\n
allotted to Aravindakshan in the partition suit, was 15.27<\/p>\n
C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005
\n                                : 4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
and not 15.67 as was wrongly stated in the final order<\/p>\n
dated 20.4.1993. Accordingly, this Court held that the<\/p>\n
balance extent to be surrendered was not 2.25 acres (as<\/p>\n
wrongly mentioned in the final order), but it was only 1.85<\/p>\n
acres. This Court granted two weeks time to Rugmini, the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner therein to exercise her option before<\/p>\n
the Taluk Land Board. The said period of two weeks was<\/p>\n
further extended by another two weeks as per order dated<\/p>\n
22.11.1999 in C.M.P.No.5118\/1999 in C.R.P.No.1881\/1993.<\/p>\n
In spite of the extension granted to Rugmini, she did not<\/p>\n
exercise any fresh option with regard to the land to be<\/p>\n
surrendered. Aravindakshan, the revision petitioner gave<\/p>\n
an option on 18.11.1999 which was, however, rejected by<\/p>\n
the Taluk Land Board on 9.2.2000 which is the order<\/p>\n
impugned in C.R.P.No.1203\/2005. In the said final order<\/p>\n
dated 9.2.2000, the Taluk Land Board fixed the extent and<\/p>\n
identity of the 1.85 acres of land to be surrendered by the<\/p>\n
family as follows:-<\/p>\n
\n\nC.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005\n                                      : 5 :<\/span>\n\n\nVillage      Sy.No.       Extent               Classification\n\n                          A. Cents\n\nPirayiri     12\/1         0.07                      OD\n\n             87\/9A        0.23                      OD\n\n             16\/7C        0.40                      OD\n\n             4\/1B         0.17                      SCW\n\n             87\/9A        0.37                      OD\n\n             4\/29A        0.04                      OD\n\n             4\/29B        0.05                      OD\n\n             4\/29D        0.52                      OD\n                       ---------------\n             Total        1.85\n                      =======\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
       The Taluk Land Board while passing the order dated<\/p>\n
9.2.2000 had taken the view that Aravindakshan had no<\/p>\n
locus standi to file an application for re-option under<\/p>\n
Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.                 On<\/p>\n
11.4.2005, Aravindakshan filed another application under<\/p>\n
Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act before the<\/p>\n
Taluk Land Board requesting for change of the identity of<\/p>\n
the land which had already been taken possession of by<\/p>\n
C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005
\n                                : 6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
the Government. The said application was rejected as per<\/p>\n
order dated 18.8.2005.         Pursuant to the order dated<\/p>\n
9.2.2000 passed by the Taluk Land Board, 1.85 acres of<\/p>\n
land detailed above were taken possession of by the<\/p>\n
Tahsildar.      Thereupon, Aravindakshan filed a contempt<\/p>\n
petition as C.O.C.No.245\/2006 before this Court alleging<\/p>\n
that possession was taken in violation of the order of stay<\/p>\n
granted      in    C.R.P.No.939\/2005.    In  the  contempt<\/p>\n
proceedings it was contented on behalf of the State that<\/p>\n
the property which was taken possession of was assigned<\/p>\n
to 19 agriculturist as per the provisions of the Kerala Land<\/p>\n
Reforms (Ceiling) Rule 1970 (hereafter referred to as the<\/p>\n
“Ceiling Rules”). However, pursuant to the order dated<\/p>\n
14.6.2006 passed by this Court in the contempt petition,<\/p>\n
the Government cancelled the assignments. The resultant<\/p>\n
position was that 1.85 acres of land the identity of which<\/p>\n
was fixed as per the order dated 9.2.2000 still remains to<\/p>\n
be the land ordered to be surrendered by Rugmini, the<\/p>\n
widow of Muthu. In the contempt petition, as per order<\/p>\n
C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005
\n                                  : 7 :<\/span><\/p>\n
dated 14.6.2006 this Court had directed the State to<\/p>\n
restore the possession of the aforesaid 1.85 acres of land<\/p>\n
to Aravindakshan, the common petitioner herein.            On<\/p>\n
19.8.2009 this Court passed an interim common order in<\/p>\n
both these revisions noting the contentions of the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner that the 1.85 acres which were claimed to have<\/p>\n
been taken possession of by the Tahsildar was not after<\/p>\n
complying with the procedure laid down by the Full Bench<\/p>\n
of this Court in Govinda Pillai v. Taluk Land Board<\/a><\/p>\n
1991 (2) KLT 880.             This Court also took note of the<\/p>\n
contention of the learned Government Pleader that the<\/p>\n
petitioner had no locus standi under section 85(8) of the<\/p>\n
KLR Act to submit further option regarding surrender of<\/p>\n
property and that opportunity was given by this Court to<\/p>\n
exercise a further option only to Rugmini while disposing<\/p>\n
of C.R.P.No.1881\/1993 and she did not exercise the option<\/p>\n
within the time granted by this Court and therefore the<\/p>\n
land was taken possession of and assigned to strangers<\/p>\n
and it was only in deference to the order passed by this<\/p>\n
C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005
\n                                 : 8 :<\/span><\/p>\n
Court that the Government cancelled the assignments and<\/p>\n
resumed the property back.\n<\/p>\n
       3.    After hearing both sides at length this Court<\/p>\n
granting one more opportunity to the mother and son<\/p>\n
namely Rugmini and Aravindakshan to file a joint option<\/p>\n
statement before this Court with copy to the Government<\/p>\n
Pleader regarding the 1.85 acres to be surrendered to the<\/p>\n
Government. In the meanwhile Rugmini, foster mother of<\/p>\n
the petitioner died on 18.6.2009.          On 6.9.2009, the<\/p>\n
petitioner filed an option statement offering to surrender<\/p>\n
1.85 acres comprising in 5 different parts of land as<\/p>\n
follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       1.    Sy.No.87\/9A (R.S.No.197\/4) –   0.60 cents (37 + 23)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       2.    Sy.No.16\/7C (R.S.No.223\/14) –  0.40 cents<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       3.    Sy.No.4\/29D (R.S.No.234\/2) –   0.55 cents<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       4.    Sy.No.13\/1 (R.S.No.234\/2)   –  0.14 cents<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       5.    Sy.No.53\/3 (R.S.No.210\/6)   –  0.16 cents\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                            —————-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   Total                    1.85 Acres\n                                           =========\n\nC.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005\n                                  : 9 :<\/span>\n\n\n             4.    The       learned     Government   Pleader\n\n<\/pre>\n
submitted that while three of the items comprised in<\/p>\n
Sy.Nos.4\/29D, 13\/1 and 53\/3 are in the possession of the<\/p>\n
petitioner, two items comprised in Sy.Nos.87\/9A and<\/p>\n
16\/7C are not in the possession of the petitioner. Those<\/p>\n
two items which are not in the possession of the petitioner<\/p>\n
cannot      be     permitted    to     be surrendered to  the<\/p>\n
Government. With regard to the three items which are in<\/p>\n
the possession of the petitioner also they are not suitable<\/p>\n
to be surrendered to the State and the Taluk Land Board<\/p>\n
may be directed to consider the fresh option now made by<\/p>\n
the petitioner.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             5.    In the light of the dispute as aforesaid, I<\/p>\n
consider it expedient to direct the Taluk Land Board to go<\/p>\n
into the question regarding the feasibility of surrendering<\/p>\n
the 5 items of properties mentioned in the option<\/p>\n
statement dated 6.9.2009 filed by the petitioner.        It is<\/p>\n
needless to say that if all the above items have been put<\/p>\n
in the account of Muthu, the assessee, the Taluk Land<\/p>\n
C.R.P. Nos. 939 & 1203 OF 2005
\n                                : 10 :<\/span><\/p>\n
Board can refuse to accept the option given by the<\/p>\n
petitioner only on any of the grounds mentioned in<\/p>\n
Section 85(6) of the KLR Act.\n<\/p>\n
       6.    The Taluk Land Board shall consider whether<\/p>\n
any of the aforesaid five items contained in the option<\/p>\n
statement dated 6.9.2009 filed by the petitioner before<\/p>\n
this Court has already been included in the final order<\/p>\n
impugned in the proceedings. The Taluk Land Board shall<\/p>\n
take into account the same also while considering the<\/p>\n
acceptability of the option. In case the Taluk Land Board<\/p>\n
does not accept the aforesaid option either wholly or in<\/p>\n
part it shall give the petitioner one more opportunity to<\/p>\n
exercise fresh option so as to enable him to surrender a<\/p>\n
total of 1.85 acres. The matter is accordingly remitted to<\/p>\n
the Taluk Land Board for the aforementioned purposes.<\/p>\n
       These C.R.Ps are disposed of accordingly.<\/p>\n
                                     V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE<\/p>\n
dmb<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Aravindakshan vs The Taluk Land Board on 4 October, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP.No. 939 of 2005() 1. ARAVINDAKSHAN, S\/O. LATE MUTHU, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, … Respondent 2. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN For Respondent :GOVERNMENT […]<\/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-88051","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAravindakshan vs The Taluk Land Board on 4 October, 2010 - 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\/aravindakshan-vs-the-taluk-land-board-on-4-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Aravindakshan vs The Taluk Land Board on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aravindakshan-vs-the-taluk-land-board-on-4-october-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-09T20:39:08+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aravindakshan-vs-the-taluk-land-board-on-4-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aravindakshan-vs-the-taluk-land-board-on-4-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Aravindakshan vs The Taluk Land Board on 4 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-09T20:39:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aravindakshan-vs-the-taluk-land-board-on-4-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1534,\"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\\\/aravindakshan-vs-the-taluk-land-board-on-4-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aravindakshan-vs-the-taluk-land-board-on-4-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aravindakshan-vs-the-taluk-land-board-on-4-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Aravindakshan vs The Taluk Land Board on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-09T20:39:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aravindakshan-vs-the-taluk-land-board-on-4-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aravindakshan-vs-the-taluk-land-board-on-4-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aravindakshan-vs-the-taluk-land-board-on-4-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Aravindakshan vs The Taluk Land Board on 4 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Aravindakshan vs The Taluk Land Board on 4 October, 2010 - 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\/aravindakshan-vs-the-taluk-land-board-on-4-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Aravindakshan vs The Taluk Land Board on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aravindakshan-vs-the-taluk-land-board-on-4-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-09T20:39:08+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aravindakshan-vs-the-taluk-land-board-on-4-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aravindakshan-vs-the-taluk-land-board-on-4-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Aravindakshan vs The Taluk Land Board on 4 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-09T20:39:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aravindakshan-vs-the-taluk-land-board-on-4-october-2010"},"wordCount":1534,"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\/aravindakshan-vs-the-taluk-land-board-on-4-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aravindakshan-vs-the-taluk-land-board-on-4-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aravindakshan-vs-the-taluk-land-board-on-4-october-2010","name":"Aravindakshan vs The Taluk Land Board on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-09T20:39:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aravindakshan-vs-the-taluk-land-board-on-4-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aravindakshan-vs-the-taluk-land-board-on-4-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aravindakshan-vs-the-taluk-land-board-on-4-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Aravindakshan vs The Taluk Land Board on 4 October, 2010"}]},{"@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\/88051","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=88051"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88051\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88051"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88051"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88051"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}