Remanded

M.Narashim Shenai v. the Taluk Land Board

Kerala HC7 Apr 2010CRP/516/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala set aside an order of the Taluk Land Board in ceiling proceedings, remanding the matter for fresh consideration due to errors in accounting tenant-held land, failure to investigate third-party possession claims, and denial of the petitioner's right of option to surrender excess land.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Taluk Land Board directing surrender of land is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration.

M.Narashim Shenai Vs the Taluk Land Board — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932

¶4

CRP.No. 516 of 2004() -------------------------------TLB.1342/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, KASARGOD ....................

¶5

REVN. PETITIONER(S):

¶6

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

¶7

M. NARASHIM SHENAI, (WRONGLY STATED AS NARASIMHA SHENOY), S/O. M. RAMACHANDRA SHANBHOGUE, HOSBETTU VILLAGE, KASARAGODE TALUK.

¶8

BY ADVS. MR.V.V.ASOKAN SMT.S.AMINA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------

¶10

1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, KASARAGODE.

¶11

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶12

3. K. UPENDRA RAO, S/O. KRISHNOJI RAO, UPASANA, KUDROLI GURUTHOTA, MANGALORE.

¶13

4. PRASHANTH M. NAIK, S/O. MADHAVA N. NAIK SAMRUDHI, NARIKKOMBU VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT.

¶14

5. C.S. SETHURAMAN, S/O. C.S. SAVANNA, KRISHNAKRIPA, BHAGAVATHY NAGAR, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, MANNAGUDDA, MANGALORE-3.

¶15

6. MOHAMMED, S/O. MAHIN BEARY, BEDAJE VILLAGE, KASARGODE.

¶16

7. M. PARVATHI, D/O. KUNHA MASTER MOODAMBAIL P.O., MANJESWAR, KASARAGODE TALUK.

¶17

C.R.P. 516/2004

¶18

8. UDAYA KUMARI, W/O. RAMAPPAN, SYNDICATE BANK, KOTTEKAR, MANGALORE.

¶19

*** 9. MRS. KAMALA, D/O. KUNHA MASTER, MOODAMBAIL P.O., MANJESWAR, KASARAGODE TALUK. (DIED)**

¶20

*IT IS RECORDED THAT THE 9TH RESPONDENT EXPIRED AND HER ONLY LEGAL HEIR IS ALREADY ON RECORD AS THE 8TH RESPONDENT ON THE CRP AND THEREFORE NO STEP IS TO BE TAKEN VIDE ORDER DTD. 4.6.08 ON CRP.

¶21

R1 & R2 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.M.N.SAJEEVAN R3 TO R5 BY ADVS. MR.K.N.SIVASANKARAN R7 & R8 BY SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI

¶22

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON 07/04/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

tss

¶24

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶25

------------------------------------CRP No.516 of 2004-A ------------------------------------Dated 7th April 2010

¶26

Order

¶27

The order dated 15.01.2004 passed by the Taluk Land Board, Kasaragod is under challenge in this CRP.

¶28

The Taluk Land Board, Kasaragod initiated ceiling proceedings against the land owner Sri.M.Ramachandra Shambhogue on the basis of the ceiling return filed by him. The land owner disclosed the total extent held by him as 169.56 acres. He claimed that the property being ancestral property, the half right therein by birth devolved on his son M.Narashim Shenai. Accordingly, he claimed that he was liable to account only 84.78 acres in his name. The Taluk Land Board, after obtaining a report from its Authorised Officer, found that the declarant had an additional extent of 48.68 acres and therefore, the total extent held by the four persons was

¶29

CRP No.516/04 2

¶30

213.24 acres. It was also held that Shri.Ramachandra Shanbhogue was liable to account 106.62 acres. Thereafter, a draft statement wherein it was suggested that the land owner is having 97.38 acres as excess land to be surrendered to the Government. The petitioner as well as various other claimants preferred claims before the Taluk Land Board, seeking to exclude different items of properties from the ceiling account of the land owner. Some of the claims so raised were accepted and the proceedings were completed by order dated 15.01.2004. The petitioner was directed to to surrender 46.56 acres as excess land. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come up in revision.

¶31

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner raised several contentions. The first contention is regarding 9.43 acres, consisting of 3.87 acres comprised in RS No.234, 1.08 acres in RS No.142/1, 4 acres in RS No.234 and 48 cents in RS No.141/5. What is interesting is that the claim put forward in respect of these properties

¶32

CRP No.516/04 3

¶33

was accepted by the Taluk Land Board and they were held to be in possession of the cultivating tenant. But, surprisingly enough, this 9.43 acres are shown liable to be surrendered by the petitioner, which is clearly wrong. If the Land Board was convinced that the said extent of 9.43 acres was outstanding with the tenants, that extent ought to have been excluded from the extent held by the declarant. The order in respect of these lands cannot be sustained in law.

¶34

The 5^th respondent tenant claimed right over 1.08 acres of land comprised in RS No.142/1. The claim of the 5^th respondent is dealt with in paragraph 18 ( Page No.8) of the impugned order and declined. However, this Court has allowed the revision petition filed by the 5^th respondent and remanded the matter to the Land Board for fresh consideration in accordance with law. If that be so, if the claim of the 5^th respondent is upheld, that extent of land claimed by the said respondent will have to be reduced from the account of the petitioner.

¶35

CRP No.516/04

¶36

¶37

The 6^th respondent had laid a claim over 0.60 acres of land comprised in RS No.10/5 and 1.15 acres in 27/1 of Badaje village. He, along with another person, claim to have purchased the janmam right over the property as per sale deed No.225/1965 dated 5.4.1965. The report of the Authorised Officer shows that the petitioner has obtained the said lands from one Mr.Moochol Mohammed Beary of Hosbettu Village. It was also reported by the Authorised Officer that no evidence was adduced by the petitioner in respect of his claim. The Taluk Land Board, therefore, rejected his claim.

¶38

The petitioner would say that the order, rejecting Mohammed Beary's claim is not correct and has not attained finality. The said person had produced several documents, which were not considered by the Land Board. Moreover, he could claim the benefit of S.7E and therefore, the extent of land held by him will have to be recovered from the declarant. His case too has been directed to be reconsidered. If he succeeds, that extent of land will have

¶39

CRP No.516/04 5

¶40

to be reduced. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in respect of several items of properties, the declarant had clearly pointed out that he was not in possession of the same. The learned counsel contended that under such circumstances, it was for the Land Board to establish that the declarant was in actual possession of the land.

¶41

The above contention appears to be correct. It is seen from the records that the declarant had stated that several items of properties are outstanding in the possession of strangers under various documents. The Taluk Land Board should have necessarily enquired into those facts and arrived at a conclusion if the claims made by the petitioner were correct and if he was still in possession of those lands. That has not been done.

¶42

It is also claimed by the petitioner that he has not been given the right of option of the lands to be surrendered by him. The above grievance also seems to be fully justified. If it is found that the petitioner is liable to

¶43

CRP No.516/04

¶44

¶45

surrender lands, he is certainly entitled to exercise his option. That has not been given to him. On that count also, the order cannot be sustained.

¶46

For the above reasons, the order so far as the the petitioner is concerned, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Taluk Land Board for fresh consideration in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained herein above.

¶47

The Petition is disposed of as above.

¶48

P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶49

sta

¶50

CRP No.516/04 7

M.Narashim Shenai v. the Taluk Land Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Narashim Shenai v. the Taluk Land Board

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

P.J.Joseph Vs State of Kerala

K.Upendra Rao Vs M.Narashim Shenai

Syndicate Bank ,Pallikara Vs C.H.Muhammed

Lalitha Ramakrishnan Vs Dhanyan and Others

Charls P.J.Luis Vs Annamkutty

N.K.Sivaraman Vs Divisional Forest Officer