Allowed

K.C.Premavathi v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Sept 2014CRP/240/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the civil revision petition, holding that the proceedings were not a statutory reopening barred by limitation. However, the Tribunal was directed to reconsider the case to exempt any 'tank on ground' from surrender before calculating the excess land extent.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Taluk Land Board to decide if the land is a tank on ground and exempt it, before calculating excess land.

K.C.Premavathi Vs the State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/28TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

CRP.No. 240 of 2010 (E)

¶6

SM 7/1999 of TALUK LAND BOARD, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD

¶7

REVISION PETITIONERS:

¶8

K.C.PREMAVATHI WIDOW OF P.K.SWAMINATHAN, THANNIKKODE KALAM, AYILOOR P.O., PALAKKAD - 678510.

¶9

S.SALISH KUMAR,S/O.LATE P.K.SWAMINATHAN., --DO--

¶10

S.SUPRIYA,D/O.LATE P.K.SWAMINATHAN, --DO--

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

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

¶14

THE TALUK LAND BOARD, CHITTUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶16

R1,R2,R3 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.SUSHEELA R BHAT

¶17

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

dl/

¶19

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶20

¶21

C.R.P. No.240 of 2010

¶22

Dated this the 19^th day of September, 2014

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶25

Petitioners are challenging order dated 23.04.2010 in SM 7/1999 passed by the Taluk Land Board, Chittur whereby, the petitioners have been directed to surrender 0.42 acres being excess land which was inherited by them from late P.K.Swaminathan.

¶26

The main challenge on the impugned order is on two grounds. The first ground is that once proceedings were initiated against the mother of late P.K.Swaminathan, namely late Neelukutty, as SM 88/1978 and the said proceedings were dropped vide order dated 31.03.1978 of the Taluk Land Board, Chittur. Therefore, the Taluk Land Board, Chittur cannot reopen the issue once again on 28.03.2000 within the meaning of Section 85(9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The second ground is that

¶27

CRP.240/2010

¶28

: 2 :

¶29

the 42 cents ordered to be surrendered is a pond and, therefore, the same ought to have been exempted within the meaning of Section 81(1)(m) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the earlier proceedings were dropped, the matter cannot be reopened on any time after the expiry of three years from 30.05.1989 within the meaning of Section 85(9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

¶32

Per contra , the learned Special Government

¶33

Pleader has argued that this is not a case wherein any earlier proceedings have been reopened; whereas, this is a fresh case instituted under Section 87 as against late P.K.Swaminathan.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioners has further

¶35

CRP.240/2010

¶36

: 3 :

¶37

argued that the report dated 19.08.2000 by the Special Tahsildar, Taluk Land Board, Chittur shows that the 42 cents directed to be surrendered is “tank on ground” and being such a tank, it comes within the category of land to be exempted under Section 81(1)(m) and, therefore, such land also is liable to be exempted.

¶38

Regarding the first point, i.e., the question of reopening, it seems that earlier order dated 31.03.1978 passed by the Taluk Land Board, Chittur shows that the proceedings were initiated against Neelukutty alone and that the properties belong to her husband Krishnan were partitioned among the said Krishnan and his two sons on 23.12.1969, and that the said two sons were married as on 01.01.1970. It was held that no separate lands were allotted to Neelukutty and, therefore, the proceedings against her had to be dropped. It was on that ground, the said proceedings were dropped.

¶39

In this particular case, it seems that the

¶40

CRP.240/2010

¶41

: 4 :

¶42

proceedings were initiated under Section 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It was found that the said Swaminathan was in possession of excess land and, therefore, an order of surrender was passed. This case cannot be treated as one reopened from the earlier proceedings initiated against Neelukutty. In the proceedings against Neelukutty, the said P.K.Swaminathan was not made a party. The said properties were not inherited by the said P.K.Swaminathan from late Neelukutty. It seems that proceedings were earlier initiated against a person, who was not holding any land. When it was later traced out that P.K.Swaminathan was holding excess land, proceedings were initiated against him under Section 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. When it is not a reopening of the earlier case, the provisions of Section 85 (9A) or the limitation prescribed therein as a condition, are not applicable to the present proceedings.

¶43

Regarding the next aspect that the excess land identified is a tank on ground, it has to be noted that if there

¶44

CRP.240/2010

¶45

: 5 :

¶46

is any tank on ground, it squarely falls under Section 81(1) (m) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and in such case, the same is liable to be exempted. Only after exempting such a tank, the question whether there is excess land or not has to be considered. Photocopy of the report dated 19.08.2000 allegedly prepared by the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Taluk Land Board, Chittur shows that “an extent of 0.42 acres may be directed to be surrendered by the assessee in RS No.418/2 (0.1685) - 0.42 acres which is tank on ground”. It seems that exemption was granted to 0.69 acres being the residential house and farm house comprised in survey No.417/1. If there is any tank on ground, the same is also liable to be exempted within the meaning of Section 81(1) (m) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The said question has to be considered. It seems that in the impugned order, the Taluk Land Board has not considered the matter of exemption with regard to the tank on ground. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration with regard to that aspect,

¶47

CRP.240/2010

¶48

: 6 :

¶49

for which the matter has to be remitted to the Taluk Land Board.

¶50

In the result, this C.R.P. is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Taluk Land Board, Chittur for deciding the question whether there is any tank on ground in the concerned properties. If it is found that there is any tank on ground, the same is also liable to be exempted. The extent of excess land, if any, has to be calculated after deciding the question whether there is any tank on ground and extent of such tank on ground. The matter is remitted for the limited purpose noted above. The parties shall appear before the Taluk Land Board on 31.10.2014. The Taluk Land Board shall decide the said question and dispose of the matter within three months from that date.

¶51

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶52

aks/19/09

¶53

// True Copy //

¶54

PA to Judge

K.C.Premavathi v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.C.Premavathi v. the State of Kerala

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

Voga Vidhya Pranic Healing Foundation Tr Vs Dr.Joy Joseph

Sadasivan Vs Sasi

Kseboard Vs Thomman Thomas

Petronet Cck Limited Vs K.v.Varghese

M/S.Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Vs Chinchu Sugunan

M/S.Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd. Vs Suresh E.S. and Another