Remanded

Kizhisseri Hamza v. Taluk Land Board, Perinthalmanna

Kerala HC21 Feb 2007CRP/2922/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court remanded a civil revision petition challenging land ceiling proceedings. It held that the matter required fresh examination in light of the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act, 2005 (Act 21 of 2006) and left the petitioner's contention regarding family size open for the Land Board to consider.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Taluk Land Board is set aside; matter remanded for fresh consideration in light of Act 21 of 2006.

Kizhisseri Hamza Vs Taluk Land Board, Perinthalmanna — Partition | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2007 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1928

¶5

CRP.No. 2922 of 2000(B)

¶6

SMP.15/1982 of TALUK LAND BOARD, PERINTALMANNA

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: DECLARANT:

¶8

KIZHISSERI HAMZA, S/O.KAMMU HAJI, KAKKOTH AMSOM, P.O.PERINTHALMANNA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.PRABHA R.MENON SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR(MOHANKUMAR ASSOCIATES SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS:

¶11

THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PERINTHALMANNA.

¶12

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA.

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR, PERINTHALMANNA.

¶14

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.L.LAKSHMI RANI

¶16

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/02/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

C.M.P.NO.5902/2000 IN C.R.P.NO.2922/2000

¶18

DISMISSED

¶19

21/2/2007 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶20

//TRUE COPY//

¶21

ahz/

¶22

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

¶23

------------------------------------

¶24

C.R.P. NO. 2922 OF 2000 B

¶25

-----------------------------------Dated this the 21^st day of February,2007

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The Revision is filed against the order dated

¶28

5.9.2000, passed by the Taluk Land Board, Perinthalmanna. The revision petitioner/declarant was found to be in possession of excess land and as per order dated 6.10.1998 and he was directed to surrender an extent of 1.36 acres. After 1.1.1970, the declarant had acquired certain lands and therefore, proceedings under Section 87 were initiated. By the order impugned, it was found that the total extent of land held by the declarant as on 1.1.1970 was 20.06 acres and that the total extent including the subsequent purchase would be 22.13 acres. A sale on 12.10.1971 in respect of 85 cents was considered and that extent was deducted and the net extent was found to be 21.28 acres. Exemption was granted in respect of 30 cents of land and the balance was found to be 20.98 acres. The

¶29

Taluk Land Board found that the ceiling limit applicable to the declarant is 18.40 acres and he was

¶30

C.R.P. NO.2922 OF 2000

¶31

:: 2 ::

¶32

directed to surrender 2.58 acres. After giving credit to the extent already directed to be surrendered, namely, 1.36 acres, the declarant was held liable to surrender 1.22 acres.

¶33

The contention of the revision petitioner is that as on 1.1.1970, the statutory family consisted of nine members and that at the time when Section 87 proceedings were initiated, the statutory family had ten members and therefore, the family is entitled to retain fifteen standard acres, so however, that the extent shall not be below fifteen acres and not more than twenty acres. The Taluk Land Board rejected this contention.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act, 2005 (Act 21 of 2006) and that the Taluk Land Board has to look into the matter in the light of Act 21 of 2006. Since Act 21/2006 contains a non obstante clause in Section 7(E)

¶35

C.R.P. NO.2922 OF 2000

¶36

:: 3 ::

¶37

which is introduced as per the amendment, I am of the view that a further examination of the case in the light of Act 21 of 2006 is necessary. Since the matter is being remanded for consideration of the question in the light of Act 21 of 2006, I am of the view that the contention raised by the petitioner on the basis of the addition of one member in the statutory family is also to be left open to be considered by the Taluk Land Board afresh.

¶38

For the aforesaid reasons, the order passed by the Taluk Land Board is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration. The Taluk Land Board shall decide the matter afresh and also in the light of the Land Reforms Amendment Act, 2005 (Act 21 of 2006).

¶39

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as above.

¶40

ahz/

¶41

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶42

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶43

C.R.P.NO. 2922 OF 2000 B

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

21^st February, 2007

Kizhisseri Hamza v. Taluk Land Board, Perinthalmanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kizhisseri Hamza v. Taluk Land Board, Perinthalmanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Vijayakumar

State of Kerala Vs Jameela Beevi

Sattile Parambath Ninkileri Subaida Vs Chekkyadath Bavotta Valappil Mehroof

Jayamol Vs Brijesh

Brijesh Vs Jayamol

Kala @ Viji Vs Aniyankunju