In a civil revision petition, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the challenge against the Taluk Land Board's order conceding an exemption of 10 acres for a rubber plantation and declined to review the earlier final order regarding 9.50 acres gifted to sons.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/25TH BHADRA, 1936
CRP.No. 494 of 2009 (E)
TLB 669/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD,MANANTHAVADY
REVISION PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR::
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LAND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.SUSHEELA R.BHAT
RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDERS::
ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS:
ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED 2ND RESPONDENT, AS PER ORDER DATED 14.7.2014 IN IA.816/2013 IN CRP.NO.494/2009.
R,R1 & 2,R 3-R5 BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
dl/
B.KEMAL PASHA, J.
................................................................ C.R.P. No. 494 of 2009
............................................................... Dated this the 16th day of September, 2014
O R D E R
The State of Kerala has come up with this Revision by challenging order dated 31.01.2008 passed by the Taluk Land Board, Mananthavady and Deputy Collector(LR) Wayanad. The matter has got a chequered career.
Mntdy, the Taluk Land Board had earlier accepted the claim
of the respondents with regard to the 9.50 acres of property which was the subject matter of the gift made in favour of two sons who had attained majority prior to the execution of the gift deed. Along with the same, the exemption relating to one acre of property being the house site was also approved. Therefore, exemption was granted for 10.50 acres of land out of the total extent of 35.22 acres. Through
CRP 494 of 2009
-: 2 :-
the said order dated 26.08.2000 the respondents had claimed before the Taluk Land Board that they were entitled to get exemption for 10 acres of land being rubber plantation. At the same time, no registration certificate from the Rubber Board was produced. Therefore, the said claim was disallowed.
CRP 494 of 2009
-: 3 :-
No.R.C.N.W.282 in the name of the respondents. The Deputy Rubber Production Commissioner, Rubber Board, Registered Office, Thalassery, has forwarded the copies of the certificates of Registration Nos.N.W.245 and N.W.282 in favour of the respondents, along with letter dated 30.10.2007. On a perusal of those certificates the Taluk Land Board found that the year of planting is 1959 and the total extent of property planted was 4.05 hectares equal to 10 acres. On an appreciation of the evidence, the Taluk Land Board has arrived at the conclusion that 10 more acres of property out of 35.22 acres is also entitled to be exempted and therefore, there is no excess land to be surrendered.
CRP 494 of 2009
-: 4 :-
allegedly executed by the respondents and further that the respondents had failed to prove that 10 acres of property was a rubber plantation prior to 01.04.1964. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that it is not open to the petitioner at present to challenge the exemption granted by the Taluk Land Board earlier with regard to 9.50 acres of land which was the subject matter of the gift in favour of two sons who had attained majority prior to the execution of the gift deed. It is true that the petitioner had not challenged the said findings entered by the Taluk Land Board in order dated 26.08.2000. Therefore, the question relating to the exemption of 9.50 acres of land which is the subject matter of the gift, and also one acre of property being the house site, cannot be challenged at present as the matter had become final.
CRP 494 of 2009
-: 5 :-
registration produced by competent authorities reveal that the plantation was of the year 1959. Therefore, any further proof is not required to show whether it was a rubber plantation prior to 01.04.1964. It seems that the findings entered by the Taluk Land Board with regard to the said 10 acres of property also, does not suffer from any irregularity, illegality or impropriety. Matters being so, the impugned order is not liable to be interfered with. Hence, this CRP is devoid of merits, and is only to be dismissed, and I do so.
In the result, this CRP is dismissed.
Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE
ul/-
[True copy] P.S. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Taluk Land Board errantly exempted an additional 10 acres of land as rubber plantation.
Whether the exemption granted for the gift deed subject matter can be challenged in the current revision.
State of Kerala
K.J. Joseph
K.J. John
Saji John
Daisy
Gracy
B. Kemal Pasha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
