Allowed

.Araswathi Bai v. Taluk Land Board, Chavakkad

Kerala HC22 Feb 2008CRP/23/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a Civil Revision Petition and remanded a land claim dispute back to the Taluk Land Board. The Court found the original order did not apply its mind to the facts or evidence, directing the Board to decide the case on merits with a detailed statement of reasons.

What did the court decide?

Order passed by the Taluk Land Board set aside; matter remitted for fresh disposal with specified directions.

.Araswathi Bai Vs Taluk Land Board, Chavakkad — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

CRP.No. 23 of 2000(H)

¶6

TLBSR.101/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, CHAVAKKAD

¶7

REVN. PETITIONERS: LRS. OF CLAIM PETITIONER::

¶8

SARASWATI BAI, W/O.LATE M.KRISHNA SHENOI, PADATHUSSERI PARAMBIL, H.NO.8/167, COCHIN – 2. (DIED)

¶9

DIVAKAR SHENOI, S/O.LATE M.KRISHNA SHENOI, -DO- -DO-

¶10

LALITHA BAI, D/O.LATE M.KRISHNA SHENOI AND W/O.V.G.G.NAIK, 59 YEARS, 'GOSREES INSTITUTE OF COMMERCE, KOOVAPADAM, COCHIN – 2.

¶11

SUDHAKAR SHENOI, S/O.LATE M.KRISHNA SHENOI, AGED 48 YEARS, BUSINESSMAN, H.NO.8/363, AJANTHA ROAD, COCHIN – 2.

¶12

VIJAYA LAKSHMI, D/O.LATE M.KRISHNA SHENOI AND W/O.VISWANATHA MALIYA, AGED 46, BANK EMPLOYEE, H.NO.8/362, 'AJANTHA ROAD', COCHIN – 2.

¶13

USHAKUMARI, D/O.LATE M.KRISHNA SHENOI AND W/O.E.A.MUKUNDAN, H.NO.8/361, AJANTHA ROAD, COCHIN – 2.

¶14

MURALEEDHARA SHENOI, S/O.LATE M.KRISHNA SHENOI, 40 YEARS, H.NO.8/167, COCHIN – 2.

¶15

PETITIONERS 2 TO 7 ARE RECORDED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED FIRST PETITIONER VIDE ORDER DATED 22.02.2008 ON MEMO DATED 24.1.2008.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.M.P.RAMNATH

¶17

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS:

¶18

THE TALUK LAND BOARD, CHAVAKKAD, KODUNGALLUR AND REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR.

¶19

THE TAHSILDAR, KODUNGALLUR.

¶20

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AZHIKODE.

¶21

THE STATE OF KERALA

¶22

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.DILEEP

¶23

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

C.M.P.NO.26/2000 IN C.R.P.NO.23/2000

¶25

DISMISSED

¶26

22/02/2008 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE

//TRUE COPY//

AHZ/

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

C.R.P. NO. 23 OF 2000

¶31

Dated this the 22^nd February, 2008

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein, namely, Krishna Shenoi, filed a claim petition under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act before the Taluk Land Board. That claim petition was rejected by the Taluk Land Board. Krishna Shenoi challenged the order of the Taluk Land Board in C.R.P.No.2895 of 1982, which was disposed of on 8.12.1986, setting aside the order passed by the Taluk Land Board and directing the Taluk Land Board to dispose of the matter afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence.

¶34

It is stated that Krishna Shenoi died on 29.1.1990. The claim made by Krishna Shenoi was that he was a cultivating tenant in respect of 4.50 acres of land, which is included in the ceiling case. He claimed that the property was leased by Haji Essa Ismail Sait in the year 1954. In the Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition, it is stated that oral and documentary evidence was adduced by the petitioners, who are the legal representatives of Krishna Shenoi. It is stated that the fifth petitioner was examined as AW1 and another independent witness was examined as AW2. The further statement in the Civil Revision Petition is that rent

¶35

C.R.P. NO. 23 OF 2000

¶36

:: 2 ::

¶37

receipts were produced before the Taluk Land Board. The Revision Petition would also disclose that there was a report submitted by the Deputy Tahsildar and that the report was in favour of the petitioners.

¶38

The order passed by the Taluk Land Board does not indicate that the claim put forward by the petitioners was considered on the merits. It is stated in the order that though notice was issued to the parties concerned to appear before the Taluk Land Board with necessary documents, the opportunity was not availed by the petitioners and no evidence was produced. It is also stated that the tenancy right is not proved. The order does not indicate as to what is the case put forward by the petitioners and what is the evidence on record. The Taluk Land Board has not applied its mind at all to the facts of the case. The claim relates to an extent of 4.50 acres of land. The Taluk Land Board is duty bound to consider the case put forward by the petitioners and to arrive at a conclusion on the merits. Valuable rights of the parties cannot be decided in the fashion in which the Taluk Land Board has decided the case now. In spite of the order passed in C.R.P.No.2895 of 1982 in the year 1986, the Taluk Land Board has disposed of the case only in the year 1999 and that too in a manner which is far from satisfactory. If the authority under the Land Reforms Act is not keen in disposing of the case properly, that is not a ground to reject the Civil Revision Petition on the

¶39

C.R.P. NO. 23 OF 2000

¶40

:: 3 ::

¶41

ground that the ceiling case was initiated several years back. The petitioners could only put forward their case before the competent authority. If the authority is not inclined to consider the case on the merits and dispose it of in the manner prescribed by law, this Court has no other alternative but to set aside the order and remand the matter to the Taluk Land Board for fresh disposal, though the case relates to the year 1982.

¶42

For the reasons stated above, the order passed by the Taluk Land Board is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Taluk Land Board for fresh disposal. The Taluk Land Board shall (1) state the case as put forward by the petitioners; (2) mention as to what is the report made by the Special Deputy Tahsildar or the Authorised Officer; (3) mention what evidence has been produced by the petitioners; (4) mention whether the evidence is reliable or not and in either case the Taluk Land Board shall state the reasons for arriving at the conclusion; (5) the Taluk Land Board shall discuss the oral and documentary evidence in detail; (6) the conclusion to be arrived at by the Taluk Land Board shall be stated in clear terms; (7) after passing the order, copy of the order shall be communicated to the petitioners; and (8) the order shall not be implemented for a period of thirty days from the date of communication of the order. (The last direction is being given in the background of the case that the petitioners were not served with a copy of

¶43

C.R.P. NO. 23 OF 2000

¶44

:: 4 ::

¶45

the order dated 23.9.1999 and they got the copy with great difficulty and filed the Revision.)

¶46

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as indicated above.

¶47

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶48

ahz/

¶49

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶50

C.R.P.NO. 23 OF 2000

¶51

O R D E R

¶52

22^nd February, 2008 -------------------------------------------

.Araswathi Bai v. Taluk Land Board, Chavakkad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

.Araswathi Bai v. Taluk Land Board, Chavakkad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopinathan Pillai Vs v.Rajappan

Martin Vs Mary

Chacko Vs Shaji

Ramakrishnan Vs Natarajan Chettiar

Dhanalekshmi Bank Ltd.,Thiruvalla Vs M/S.J.K.Trading Company

Vasantha Vs Kurumpa Kutty