Dismissed

State of Kerala v. P.M.Raman Namboothiripad

Kerala HC8 Feb 2013CRP/7/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed by the State challenging a Taluk Land Board order directing land surrender. The Court upheld the Board's findings that 64.66 acres constituted vested forest based on approved reports and village records, reducing liable land to 1.47 acres.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision is dismissed holding that the land liable to be surrendered is 1.47 acres after valid exemptions.

State of Kerala Vs P.M.Raman Namboothiripad — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/19TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

CRP.No. 7 of 2008 (C)

¶6

[THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 29/07/2004 IN LB/SR.NO.384 & 386/73 OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD,PALAKKAD]

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶8

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER.

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATEMENT GIVER:

¶11

*** P.M.RAMAN NAMBOOTHIRPAD, POOMULLIMANA, PERINGODE, PALAKKAD. (DIED, STRUCK OF FROM THE PARTY ARRAY).*

¶12

*ADDL.R2. UMA ANTHARJANAM, W/O. P.M. RAMAN NAMBOOTHIRIPAD, POOMULLIMANA, PERINGODE, NAGALASSERY VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD.

¶13

*ADDL.R3. P.M. VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, S/O. P.M. RAMAN RAMBOOTHIRIPAD, POOMULLIMANA, PERINGODE, NAGALASSERY VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD.

¶14

*ADDL.R4. REMA RAJAKUMARAN, D/O. P.M. RAMAN NAMBOOTHIRIPAD, POOMULIMANA, PERINGODE, NAGALASSERY VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD.

¶15

*ADDL. R2 TO R4 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED SOLE RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DTD. 08/02/13 IN I.A. 2976/09.

¶16

BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR,

¶17

SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN, SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR, SMT.GEETHA P.MENON, SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN.

¶18

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Prv.

¶20

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶21

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 7 of 2008

¶22

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8^th day of February, 2013

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This revision is at the instance of the State, in challenge of order dated 29.07.2004 in TLB No.384 and 386 of 1973 of the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad (for short, “the TLB”) directing the declarant to surrender 1.47 acres after giving exemption. The declarant was holding a total extent of 123.88 acres. He claimed exemption on various grounds. A claim was also made by one P.M. Narayanan.

¶25

The objection preferred by the declarant claiming exemption and the claim made by P.M. Narayanan were got enquired through the authorised officer attached to the TLB. The authorized officer submitted his report dated 10.04.2002. That report exempted certain areas from the total extent held by the declarant. That report was accepted and the TLB found that land liable to be surrendered by the declarant was only 1.47 acres. Hence this civil revision petition.

¶26

C.R.P. No. 7 of 2008

¶27

-2-

¶28

Learned Special Government Pleader for the

¶29

State has contended that exemptions granted by the TLB are not supported by any acceptable evidence. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported order of the TLB.

¶30

It is seen from the impugned order that it is based on a report dated 10.4.2002 submitted by the authorised officer that exemptions were granted by the TLB. 64.66 acres being vested forest, pegmarked by the forest department was exempted. Main challenge of the State appears to be to that exemption.

¶31

Regarding that, it is seen from the impugned order that apart from the report of the authorised officer that the said area is vested forest, village records also revealed so and it is based on village records as well, that the authorised officer has submitted his report.

¶32

The other exemptions granted by the TLB are described in the order and are supported by the materials referred therein.

¶33

It is not shown that report of the authorised

¶34

C.R.P. No. 7 of 2008

¶35

-3-

¶36

officer which itself is based on the relevant village records that 64.66 acres is vested forest is incorrect. In that view of the mater, the TLB was correct in acting upon report of the authorised officer and allowing exemption. It follows that the land available to be surrendered by the declarant is only 1.47 acres.

¶37

As such the civil revision is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

Civil Revision is dismissed.

¶39

Sd/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE

¶40

//True copy//

¶41

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶42

shg/

State of Kerala v. P.M.Raman Namboothiripad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. P.M.Raman Namboothiripad

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

Sankaran Nair Vs N.Chandrasekharan Nair

Vaheedabhanu Vs v.Ganesh

Raveendran Vs Swamy Bhoomananda Theertha

5EJANI and Others Vs Selvister and Another

Tomy Vs the Chairman, Kerala State Electricity Board

Chodath Shaikoya Vs the Land Acquisition Collector