Dismissed

Kadooran Unnipathumma v. Mohammed

Kerala HC8 Feb 2008CRP/2356/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single member family petitioners challenged a Taluk Land Board order regarding land ceiling exemption. The Court confirmed the Board's rejection of the pre-1970 building claim but was inclined to grant an opportunity to file a fresh option statement regarding land classification before final dispossession. The petition was dismissed regarding the impugned order's core validity but remanded for pro

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed regarding the impugned order; petitioner granted one month to file a fresh option statement.

Kadooran Unnipathumma Vs Mohammed — 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 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929

¶5

C.R.P.No. 2356 of 2001(C)

¶6

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

¶7

( AGAINST THE ORDER IN CR.4/87/M4 DATED 17.07.2001 OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD, ERNAD.)

¶8

REVN. PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:

¶9

¶10

KADOORAN UNNIPATHUMMA, KADOORAN HOUSE, P.O. PANNIPPARA, VIA. EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

MARIYUMMA, D/O. RAYIN, -DO-DO-

¶12

SAIDALAVI. S/O. UNNIMAMMED HAJI,

¶13

-DO-DO-

¶14

MOHAMMED ALI, S/O. UNNIMAMMED HAJI, -DO-DO-

¶15

HAMZA, S/O. UNNIMAMMED HAJI, -DO-DO-

¶16

AYSHA, D/O. UNNIMAMMED HAJI, -DO-DO-

¶17

AFSATH, S/O. UNNIMAMMED HAJI, -DO-DO-

¶18

PATHUMMA, W/O. UNNIMAMMED HAJI, -DO-DO-

¶19

MOIDEENKUTTY, S/O. VEERANKUTTY, -DO-DO-

¶20

MOHAMMED, S/O. VEERANKUTTY, -DO-DO-

¶21

AMEENA, D/O. VEERANKUTTY, -DO-DO-

¶22

C.R.P.NO. 2356 OF 2001.

¶23

NAFEESA, D/O. VEERANKUTTY,

¶24

-DO-DO-

¶25

PATHUMMA, D/O. VEERANKUTTY, -DO-DO-

¶26

KHADEEJUMMA, W/O. VEERANKUTTY, KADOORAN HOUSE, P.O. PANNIPPARA (VIA) EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶27

KORAMBA MUHAMMED, S/O. AMINAKUTTY, -DO-DO-

¶28

NAFEESA, D/O. AMINAKUTTY,

¶29

-DO-DO-

¶30

MARIYUMMA, D/O. AMINAKUTTY,

¶31

-DO-DO-

¶32

BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON

¶33

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶34

MOHAMMED, KADOORAN HOUSE, P.O. PANNIPPARA, (VIA.)EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶35

THE TALUK LAND BOARD, ERNAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶36

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERAKKAMANNA VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶37

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAVANOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶38

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶39

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI S. DILEEP. R1 BY ADV. SHRI C.N. SAMEER.

¶40

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶41

C.R.P.NO. 2356 OF 2001.

¶42

ORDER ON C.M.P.NO. 5050 OF 2001 IN C.R.P.NO. 2356 OF 2001.

¶43

DISMISSED.

¶44

08.02.2008

¶45

SD/- K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE.

¶46

/TRUE COPY/

¶47

P.A. TO JUDGE.

¶48

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

¶49

C.R.P. No. 2356 OF 2001

¶50

Dated this the 8^th February, 2008

¶51

O R D E R

¶52

Suo motu proceedings were initiated against the legal representatives of Pathumma Hajumma. Pathumma Hajumma was a single member family as provided under section 82 (1) (a) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act . The legal representatives of the assessee filed objections and contended that as on 01.01.1970, Pathumma Hajumma was not holding lands in excess of the ceiling area.

¶53

By the final order dated 29.12.1988, the Taluk Land Board found that the assessee was holding a total extent of 11.70 ¼ ordinary acres equivalent to 5.60 standard acres. Exemption was granted for an extent of 70 cents as house and site. A single member family could retain 5 standard acres, so however, the ceiling area shall not be less than 6 and more than 7 ½ ordinary acres in extent as provided under section 82(1) (a) of the Act. Apparently, the Taluk Land Board took the view that the assessee could retain 7.50 ordinary acres. Accordingly, the assessee was directed to surrender an extent of 3.50 ¼ ordinary acres equivalent to 2.02 ¼ standard acres.

¶54

The legal representatives of the assessee challenged the order dated 29.12.1988 in C.R.P.No. 809 of 1989. Four contentions were raised by them. They were the following:

¶55

(i) The ceiling area of the assessee has to be determined in accordance with clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 82 of the Land Reforms Act .

¶56

(ii) There is a building in Sy.No. 586/2, but no exemption was granted in respect of that building.

¶57

C.R.P. No. 2356 OF 2001

¶58

¶59

(iii) In Sy.NO. 559/1 having an extent of 70 cents, there are only 20 arecanut trees and therefore, the Taluk Land Board was not justified in treating the land as an arecanut garden with the consequence that 70 cents would be treated as 1.40 standard acres.

¶60

(iv) The land in Sy.No.55/5B is only a 'palliyal'. But the Taluk Land Board erroneously treated the land as a single crop wet land.

¶61

C.R.P.No. 809 of 1989 was disposed of by order dated 20^th November, 1989. The contention of the assessee that the ceiling area has to be fixed under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 82 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, was rejected. As regards the contention that there was a building as on 01.01.1970 in Sy.No. 586/2, the revision petitioners had relied on the building tax extracts issued by the Panchayat which would indicate that they had paid building tax for the years 1962-63 to 1966-67. The petitioners contended that the building was in existence as on 01.01.1970 and therefore, exemption should be granted in respect of that building. The authorised officer had reported that the building was constructed after 01.01.1970. This court while disposing of C.R.P.No. 809 of 1989 directed the Taluk Land Board to consider the question afresh, after calling for a fresh report from the authorised officer and after affording an opportunity to the revision petitioners to adduce fresh evidence.

¶62

The contention that the Taluk Land Board was not justified in treating 70 cents of land in Sy.No. 559/1 as an arecanut garden was considered in C.R.P.No. 809 of 1989 and the Taluk Land Board was directed to call for a report from the authorised officer regarding the number of arecanut trees in the area and to determine the question as to whether the entire extent of 70 cents or any portion thereof has to be treated as an arecanut garden. The contention that the land in Sy.No. 55/5B is a

¶63

¶64

C.R.P. No. 2356 OF 2001

¶65

'palliyal' was rejected by this Court in C.R.P.No. 809 of 1989.

¶66

After remand, the Taluk Land Board passed the present order dated 17.07.2001, by which the contention raised by the petitioners that the building came into existence before 01.01.1970 was rejected. The Taluk Land Board relied on the report of the authorised officer which would indicate that there was a shop room which was demolished for the construction of an approach road and that the existing house was constructed after 01.01.1970. The authorised officer had verified the re-survey records and had conducted local enquiry. It was also noticed that the revision petitioners failed to produce the building tax extract for the years prior to 1967-68 to 1971-72. The Taluk Land Board accepted the contention of the petitioners that the full extent of 70 cents in R.S.No. 559/1 is not an arecanut garden. It was found that there are only 52 arecanut trees in the land and the Taluk Land Board arrived at the conclusion that an extent of 6 ½ cents of land could be treated as arecanut garden and the balance extent could be treated as other 'O.D.' land.

¶67

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusing the records, I am not inclined to accept the contention raised by the petitioners that the building came into existence before 01.01.1970. Therefore, that part of the order passed by the Taluk Land Board is to be confirmed. As regards the classification of the land as arecanut garden, the petitioners have succeeded before the Taluk Land Board. The above aspects were the only two points directed to be considered by the Taluk Land Board. The order passed by the Taluk Land Board is correct and it does not call for any interference in Revision under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

¶68

However, taking an extreme lenient view in the matter, I am inclined to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to file a fresh option statement. The petitioners shall file

¶69

¶70

C.R.P. No. 2356 OF 2001

¶71

the option statement within a period of one month from today. If the Taluk Land Board finds that the option statement filed by the petitioners can be accepted, those lands can be taken possession of. If the petitioners fail to file the option statement, as directed above, the lands directed to be taken possession of, as per the order dated 17.07.2001 shall be taken possession of.

¶72

K.T. SANKARAN,

¶73

¶74

C.R.P. No. 2356 OF 2001

¶75

¶76

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

¶77

C.R.P. No. 2356 OF 2001

¶78

Dated this the 8^th February, 2008

¶79

O R D E R

Kadooran Unnipathumma v. Mohammed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadooran Unnipathumma v. Mohammed

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

K.S.E.B Vs Paduvilan Devaki Amma

M/S.Oriental Supplies & Services Co.Ltd Vs Cement Corporation

N.Rajagopal Vs M.v.Bahuleyan

Ummer Vs Abdul Jabbar

Vadakkedath Kannan Vs Nambiathre Sivakshethram Trustee

N.v.Kannan Nair Vs Chairman