Allowed

Kunhivalappil Krishnan v. the Land Tribunal Lr II Special Tahsilda

Kerala HC1 Jun 2009WP(C)/10905/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged the Land Tribunal's refusal to entertain an assignment claim due to pending proceedings. Court held Tribunal didn't err in deferring merits pending conclusion of Section 85(8) proceedings, ordered disposal within one year, and granted interim protection against dispossession.

What did the court decide?

Order dismissed with liberty to move Land Tribunal de novo within one year; applicant not to be dispossessed.

Kunhivalappil Krishnan Vs the Land Tribunal Lr II Special… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 10905 of 2009(G)

PETITIONER(S):

KUNHIVALAPPIL KRISHNAN,S/O.KUNHATHI AMMA, (LATE),PERMTHATTA AMSOM, THAVIDISSERY, P.OL.ARAVANCHAL, PAYYANNUR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.MANURAJ. K.J SRI.K.JANARDHANAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

THE LAND TRIBUNAL LR II, SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, PAYYANNUR.

¶14

TAHSILDAR,TALIPARAMBA TALUK, TALIPARAMBA.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS & CHAIRMAN LAND BOARD,TALIPARAMBA,KANNUR.

¶16

BY GP K R DEEPA

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

APPENDIX(WP(C) 10905/2009

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXTS.

¶20

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28029 OF 2008 DTD. 22.9.2008.

¶21

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE VILLAGE OFFICER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 20.4.2008.

¶22

EXT.P3 AND P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER AND SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY.

¶23

EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN S.M.1019 OF 2009 DTD. 16.1.2009.

¶24

lgk

¶25

THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J

¶26

........................................... WP(C).NO. 10905 OF 2009 ............................................

¶27

DATED THIS THE 1^st DAY OF JUNE, 2009

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

One Puthalath Sankaran Nair and another were declarants before the Taluk Land Board in the proceedings under Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as the Act . On the basis of the decision of the Taluk Land Board, the petitioner, claiming to be the cultivating tenant of a portion of the holding belonging to the declarant, initiated proceedings for suo motu assignment under Section 72C of the Act. The Land Tribunal was then told through the report of the Authorised Officer that proceedings are pending before the Taluk Land Board under Section 85(8) of the Act, for reopening, and for certain other orders. Accordingly, by the impugned order, Land Board has refused to entertain the claim of the petitioner on merits and has left the petitioner with liberty to move the Land Tribunal after conclusion of the proceedings before Taluk Land Board which essentially is the proceeding stated to be pending under Section 85(8) of the Act. If an item of land is exempted on the basis of a

¶30

WP(C) 10905 OF 2009 2

¶31

declaration, as referable to a vesting under Section 72, the tenant may be entitled to move the Land Tribunal for an order of assignment, even suo motu. The consequence of a suo motu assignment in that context may have a further bearing on the closure of the legal incidents of the proceedings before the Taluk Land Board. But if the proceedings in relation to the declaration before the Taluk Land Board is sought to be reopened, that may

¶32

have an impact on the question of assignment even under Section 72C. Therefore Land Tribunal cannot be found fault with for any legal error or jurisdictional impediment in having left the issue without entering on merits and preserving the petitioner's right to move for assignment at a later point of time. The petitioner cannot be forced to wait indefinitely for a result on his claim on the basis of the averment that the right, title and interest of the landlord vested in the Government is liable to be assigned to him in terms of Section 72C. This logical end ought to be reasonably achieved within a fair span of time. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings under Section 85(8) of the Act has been concluded in April 2009. Accordingly, the Land Tribunal will take up the

¶33

WP(C) 10905 OF 2009

¶34

¶35

proceedings in relation to which impugned Ext.P4 order was issued and decide the matter de novo . Until the conclusion of such proceedings, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed. Needless to say, the proceedings before the Land Tribunal are under Section 72C and has therefore to be disposed of after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and in accordance with law. Let this be done within an outer limit of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶36

THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶37

lgk/2/6

Kunhivalappil Krishnan v. the Land Tribunal Lr II Special Tahsilda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunhivalappil Krishnan v. the Land Tribunal Lr II Special Tahsilda

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

The Kulappully Service Co-Oprative Vs v. Krishnan and Others

Vincent Vs Manalur Grama Panchayath

Achamma Thomas Vs the Secretary, Edathwa Grama Panchayat

Happy Chackochan Vs State of Kerala

Anwar Sadath and Another Vs Manjeri Municipality and Another

S.Mangalan Vs the Commissioner of Excise, Tvm