Disposed

Ramaswamy Gounder v. the Taluk Land Board and Others

Kerala HC16 Dec 2008WP(C)/36931/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought directions for the Taluk Land Board to consider his application under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The High Court of Kerala held that it was the Board's primary duty to decide tenant status and land exclusion, directing the Board to pass orders within four months after hearing parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Taluk Land Board, Chittur to consider Ext.P2 application and pass orders within four months after hearing parties.

Ramaswamy Gounder Vs the Taluk Land Board and Others — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 36931 of 2008(V)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

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

¶9

RAMASWAMY GOUNDER, S/O. MARAPPA GOUNDER, KOZHIPATHY VILLAGE, MOONGILMADA.P.O, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, CHITTUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶14

2. APPUSWAMY GOUNDER, S/O. SUBBAYA GOUNDER, MOONGAMADA KALAM, KOZHIPATHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK.

¶15

3. JANAKI AMMAL, -DO-.

¶16

R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

prv.

¶19

P.N.Ravindran, J.

¶20

===================== W.P(C).No.36931 of 2008

¶21

=====================

¶22

Dated this the 16^th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT

¶23

Heard Sri.P.R.Venkatesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶24

The petitioner and his brother purchased 9.26 acres of land situated in Survey Nos.490/1 and 439/1 of Kozhipathy Village in Chittur Taluk, Palakkad District, as per assignment deeds executed by the second respondent in the years 1970 and 1972. Thereafter they purchased the jenm right as per order passed by the Land Tribunal. In the year 1978 the petitioner obtained the rights of his brother. In ceiling proceedings initiated against the second respondent under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1953, the lands assigned to the petitioner were declared as excess lands, liable to be surrendered by the second respondent. Though the petitioner moved the Taluk Land Board under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, his application was rejected. The claim now made by the petitioner is that in view of Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, introduced as per Amendment Act 21 of 2006, he is a deemed tenant entitled to purchase the land. The petitioner submits that claiming reliefs under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, he has moved the Taluk Land Board,

¶25

WP(C) 36931/08 -: 2 :-

¶26

Chittoor, by submitting Ext.P2 application. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for a direction to the Taluk Land Board, Chittur, to consider Ext.P2 application and pass orders thereon, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶27

The petitioner claims that he continues to be in possession of lands and that he has not so far been dispossessed. He also claims that he is a deemed tenant by virtue of Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The question whether, in view of Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, the lands held by the petitioner are liable to be excluded from the account of the declarant and whether the petitioner is a deemed tenant are all matters which the Taluk Land Board has to decide in the first instance.

¶28

Such being the situation, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Taluk Land Board, Chittur, to consider Ext.P2 application and pass orders thereon, after notice to and affording the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 an opportunity of being heard. Final orders in this matter shall be passed within four months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment.

¶29

P.N.Ravindran, Judge.

¶30

ess 3/1

Ramaswamy Gounder v. the Taluk Land Board and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramaswamy Gounder v. the Taluk Land Board and Others

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

Prof.K.M.Varghese Vs Sri.K.a.Hashim

V.I.Krishnan Thamban Vs the Director of Urban Affairs

M.S.Sajeev Kumar Vs State of Kerala and Others

Kuttan Nair Vs K.R.Muraleedharan and Another

M.P.Hameed Vs the Dist. Collector, Idukki

Anandakumar.T.L. Vs K.S.E.Board