Partly allowed

Kottadan Ahammed Kutty v. Taluk Land Board

Kerala HC16 Sept 2014CRP/305/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition partly, holding that in calculating excess land for surrender, the Taluk Land Board erred by failing to deduct the 5-acre ceiling area admissible for a seven-member family, as recognized in prior orders. The court modified the impugned order to deduct these 5 acres from the excess land calculated.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was allowed in part by modifying the impugned order to deduct 5 acres from the excess land calculated as 18.94 acres.

Kottadan Ahammed Kutty Vs Taluk Land Board — 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

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/25TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

CRP.No. 305 of 2010 (B)

¶6

CR 373/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, THIRURANGADI

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/DECLARANT:

¶8

KOTTADAN AHAMMED KUTTY,

¶9

S/O.KUNHIMOIDEEN KUTTY HAJEE, TIRUR AMSOM DESOM TIRUR TALUK. (DIED LR'S IMPLEADED)

¶10

ADDITIONAL REVISION PETITIONERS 2 TO 10 IMPLEADED:

¶11

MUHAMMED, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.LATE SRI.KOTTADAN AHAMMED KUTTY, TIRUR AMSOM, DESOM, TIRUR TALUK.

¶12

ALAVI, AGED 50 YRS, S/O. -DO-

¶13

SAUDA, AGED 46 YRS, D/O. -DO-

¶14

FATHIMA, AGED 45 YRS, D/O. -DO-

¶15

MAIMOONA, AGED 43 YRS, D/O. -DO-

¶16

MOIDEEN, AGED 41 YRS, S/O. -DO-

¶17

ASMABI, AGED 37 YRS, D/O. -DO-

¶18

RASHEED, AGED 35 YRS, S/O. -DO-

¶19

LAILABI, AGED 30 YRS, D/O. -DO-

¶20

ADDL.REVISION PETITIONERS 2 TO 10 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED 1ST PETITIONER VIDE ORDER DATED 22.7.2014 IN IA.1349/11.

¶21

BY ADVS.SRI.M.M.ABDUL AZIZ (SR.) SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM

¶22

RESPONDENTS:

¶23

TALUK LAND BOARD,THIRURANGADY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶24

CRP.No. 305 of 2010 (B)

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

dl/

¶29

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶30

................................................................ C.R.P. No. 305 of 2010

¶31

............................................................... Dated this the 16^th day of September, 2014

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

Petitioners are challenging the order dated 11.05.2010 passed by the Taluk Land Board, Thirurangady in C.R.No.373/73(C6). The matter has got a chequered career.

¶34

Originally vide order dated 28.09.1976, it was found that the ceiling area admissible to the family consisting of seven members was 20 ordinary acres equal to 8.36 standard acres. As the land in R.S.120, which was in the possession of the Court Receiver in O.S.No.14/70 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Manjeri, was not excluded from that order, the said order was reviewed by the Taluk Land Board and fresh order dated 28.01.2006 was passed. At the same time, ceiling area admissible to the family was mistakenly considered in order dated 28.01.2006 as 15

¶35

CRP 305 of 2010

¶36

-: 2 :-

¶37

acres only. Further, without considering the exemption to be granted for one acre being the house site, an extent of 19.94 acres as excess land was ordered to be surrendered.

¶38

Challenging the said order dated 28.01.2006, the petitioners had approached this Court through CRP No.203/2006. Three contentions were taken up by the petitioners in the said CRP. The first contention was that the ceiling area admissible to the family is 20 ordinary acres, the 2^nd contention was that they were in possession of 5 acres and 10 cents only in R.S.No.427 and that the findings entered by the Taluk Land Board that they were in possession of 32.90 acres in the said survey is not correct, and the 3^rd contention was that the house site of one acre has also to be deducted. For considering the said contentions, the matter was remitted to the Taluk Land Board, Thirurangady, and consequently, the impugned order has been passed.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶40

CRP 305 of 2010

¶41

-: 3 :-

¶42

Sri.M.A. Abdul Hakhim and the learned Special Government Pleader Smt.Susheela R. Bhat for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that excess land to be surrendered is mistakenly calculated as 18.94 acres, as there is a shortage of 5 acres in the ceiling area applicable to the family. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in item No.2 of paragraph 'H', the Taluk Land Board has approved the findings entered by the Taluk Land Board in order dated 28.09.1976 with regard to the minimum ceiling area applicable to the family consisting of seven members as 20 ordinary acres . Further, it seems that the Taluk Land Board has approved that one acre of land is also to be exempted being house site.

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Taluk Land Board has not considered the judgment passed by the Munsiff Court, Manjeri in O.S.138/80 for considering the question of the extent of land in R.S.No.427.

¶44

CRP 305 of 2010

¶45

-: 4 :-

¶46

The learned Special Government Pleader Smt. Susheela Bhat has pointed out that O.S.138/80 was filed for the purpose of a declaration with regard to the extent of property over which plantation tax had to be remitted by the petitioner. In the said suit, matters regarding ceiling area or excess land were not at all in question and therefore, the judgment in O.S.No.138/80 has no effect at all with regard to the matters in controversy in this case.

¶47

It seems that in order dated 28.01.2006, the Taluk Land Board had calculated the extent of 19.94 acres by considering the ceiling applicable to the family as 15 ordinary acres only. When the ceiling area applicable to the family was fixed by the Taluk Land Board in order dated 28.09.1976 and the same has been approved in the impugned order, the petitioners are entitled to get exemption in respect of 20 ordinary acres as mentioned by the Taluk Land Board in order dated 28.09.1976. Therefore, necessarily an extent of 5 acres are also to be exempted

¶48

CRP 305 of 2010

¶49

-: 5 :-

¶50

from the excess land calculated as 18.94 acres in the impugned order.

¶51

As rightly pointed out by the learned Special

¶52

Government Pleader, O.S.138/80 was confined to the question of plantation tax alone. In that case, it seems that the petitioners had produced documents showing the subsequent transfers to show that they were not in possession of 32.90 acres allotted to them through the partition deed of 1959. Of course, for calculating the plantation tax, those documents could be considered. At the same time, those documents of transfers, created for the purpose of evading proceedings for the surrender of excess land, could only be null and void as far as the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act are concerned. Therefore, the declaration obtained by the petitioner through the judgment and decree in O.S.138/80 are of no consequence at all as far as the present case is concerned. It is the admitted case that the question of excess land, ceiling area etc. were not

¶53

CRP 305 of 2010

¶54

-: 6 :-

¶55

at all matters in controversy in O.S.138/80.

¶56

From the above, it has to be noted that apart from

¶57

a deduction of 5 acres from the excess land calculated as 18.94 acres, the impugned order is not liable to be interfered with in any other respect. The impugned order requires a modification to the effect that an extent of 5 acres has also to be deducted from the excess land calculated by the Taluk Land Board as 18.94 acres. With the said modification, this CRP is liable to be disposed of.

¶58

In the result, this CRP is allowed in part by clarifying that from the excess land of 18.94 acres calculated by the Taluk Land Board, an extent of 5 acres of land has also to be deducted being the ceiling area admissible to the family.

¶59

The CRP fails in all other aspects and with the said modification this CRP is disposed of.

¶60

Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE

¶61

ul/-

¶62

[True copy] P.S. to Judge

Kottadan Ahammed Kutty v. Taluk Land Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kottadan Ahammed Kutty v. Taluk Land Board

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

Sajeevkumar Vs Th Sub Inspector of Police

Sudheer Vs State of Kerala

Sivanandan @ Thankachan Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs K.J.Joseph and Anr.

The Secretary Vs P.v.Chackochan

S.Subramanya Iyer Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.