Dismissed

Balasubramanian v. the Taluk Land Board

Kerala HC14 Aug 2014WP(C)/4661/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking exemption for land from ceiling proceedings. The court held that since the proceedings had attained finality before the amendment inserting 'cashew estate' as exempt land, the petitioner could not claim benefit under the amendment. Consequently, the petition for exemption was not allowed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as the petitioner is not entitled to exemption for land where ceiling proceedings had attained finality prior to the amendment.

Balasubramanian Vs the Taluk Land Board — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/23RD SRAVANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 4661 of 2014 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

BALASUBRAMANIAN, S/O.AYYAPPUNNI, THAMARASSERY HOUSE, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.K.RAKESH

¶9

RESPONDENTS :

¶10

1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, ERNAD, REPRESENTED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR, PERINTHALMANNA, PIN - 679 322.

¶11

2. THE TAHSILDAR, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 121.

¶12

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAVANOOR VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 638.

¶13

R1 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUSEELA.R.BHATT R2 & R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME FOR ADMISSON ON 16-06-2014, THE COURT ON 14-08-2014 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

WP(C).No. 4661 of 2014 (G)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 03/12/1999. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE TABLE DETAILING THE TOTAL EXTENT OF LAND EXEMPTED PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 09/06/2012 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA AS NO. 9207/LEG.B2/2012/LAW. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHER LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECLARANT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

¶21

ANNEXURE R2(A):	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENTS IN CRP 2491/2000 AS RP 947/2013 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE R2(B):	A TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR RESTORING AN EXTENT OF 2 ACRE 69 CENTS TO THE DECLARANT.
ANNEXURE R2(C):	A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 12 CERTIFICATE.
ANNEXURE R2(D):	A TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR TAKING OVER AN EXTENT OF 2.7278 HECTARE.
ANNEXURE R2(E):	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT SKETCH EVIDENCING TAKING OVER OF THE LAND.
ANNEXURE R2(F):	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT SKETCH EVIDENCING TAKING OVER OF THE LAND. //TRUE COPY//

¶22

P.S.TO JUDGE.

¶23

A.M. Shaffique, J.

¶24

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶25

W.P(C) No. 4661 of 2014

¶26

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶27

Dated this, the 14^th day of August, 2014.

¶28

This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction that

¶29

the properties of the petitioner comprised in R.S. Nos. 205 and 401 of Kavanoor (Iruvetty) Village are liable to be exempted as per Ext. P3 notification and for consequential reliefs.

¶30

The facts involved in this case would disclose that the Taluk Land Board, Ernad, had taken ceiling proceedings against late Ayyappunni as per C.R. No. 1092/1973. Though, initially, the land was taken possession as excess land, the same was re-conveyed to the legal heirs of the declarant. In a revision filed by the State, the order of the Taluk Land Board was set aside and thereby the legal heirs of the declarant were called upon to surrender the said property. It is stated that the petitioner and other legal

¶31

W.P(C) No. 4661 of 2014 -: 2 :-

¶32

heirs sold an extent of 1.05 acres of property from R.S. Nos. 421 and 384/3 in the year 2001 for valid consideration and the land was liable to be exempted under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred as the Act).

¶33

Presently they rely upon Exts. P1 and P2 to indicate that the property involved was cashew plantation. Ext.P3 is the notification exempting cashew plantation from the purview of ceiling. Ext. P4 representation was submitted to the Taluk Land Board, but no action has been taken in the matter and at this stage, when coercive measures were taken to repossess the land, this writ petition is filed.

¶34

A statement is filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent inter alia stating that the attempt of the petitioner is to re-open the already concluded proceedings of the Taluk Land Board as confirmed by the judgment of this Court in C.R.P. No. 2491/2000 and further confirmed as per order in R.P. No. 947/2013. It

¶35

W.P(C) No. 4661 of 2014 -: 3 :-

¶36

is contended that the land having an extent of 2 acres 69 cents in R.S. No. 205 was restored to the declarant as per Ext. R2(b) mahazar. It is also contended that the property does not satisfy the requirements of cashew estate as notified by notification No. 9207/ Leg.B2/2010/Law dated 19.6.2012. It is stated that cashew estate can be exempted only if the same is principally cultivated with cashew trees having 150 cashew trees per hectare. It is stated that the land now taken over contains only 20 number of cashew trees in the entire extent of 2.7278 hectares.

¶37

Reference to the judgment in C.R.P. No. 2491/2000 would indicate that as per the order passed by the Taluk Land Board against the declarant, direction was issued to surrender 31.78 acres of land as excess area. The order was challenged in revision before this Court and a direction was issued for redetermination of the excess land afresh. Fresh orders were passed directing the declarant to surrender 20.66

¶38

W.P(C) No. 4661 of 2014 -: 4 :-

¶39

acres of land. He surrendered 13.39 acres and the balance area of 7.27 acres remained to be surrendered. The order of the Taluk Land Board was challenged by the declarant by filing revision. Again the matter was set aside and remanded back to the Taluk Land Board. Revised orders were passed by the Board fixing excess land as 20.13 acres and balance area to be surrendered as 6.74 acres. The order was challenged by the declarant in revision, which was dismissed by this Court. Special Leave Petition was also dismissed.

¶40

The State further contended that one of the legal heirs of the declarant filed an application under Section 85(8) of the Act claiming tenancy over 7.50 acres of land. Another legal heir submitted an application under Section 136A of the Kerala Land Reforms Tenancy Rules before the Taluk Land Board contending that an extent of 22.50 acres in Sy. No. 205 should not have been included in the ceiling proceedings. The Taluk Land Board entertained this

¶41

W.P(C) No. 4661 of 2014 -: 5 :-

¶42

application and re-determined the ceiling area, accepting the contentions of the applicants and directed re-conveyance of 6.42 acres of land already taken possession from the declarant as excess area.

¶43

After hearing the parties in the revision filed by the State, this Court found that the Taluk Land Board's order is patently illegal and unsustainable. It is found that when the order in C.R.P. No. 8321/1993 dated 28.7.1997 had become final, the legal heirs of the declarant cannot have any further right in the matter. Therefore, such applications were not maintainable and the Taluk Land Broad had committed serious illegality in considering the same. Accordingly, the order passed by the Taluk Land Board was set aside. R.P. No. 947/2013 filed against the aforesaid judgment was also dismissed as per order dated 10.12.2013.

¶44

The present attempt of the petitioner is only

¶45

W.P(C) No. 4661 of 2014 -: 6 :-

¶46

to re-open the whole issue in the light of Ext. P3 notification. As per Ext. P3, an amendment is made to Section 81(1)(c) of the Act, by inserting clause (f) as “cashew estate” forming part of exempted land. However, it is clearly indicated in the explanation that cashew estate “shall mean any land, principally cultivated with not less than 150 cashew trees per hectare.”

¶47

It is not in dispute that the Taluk Land Board proceedings had attained finality. Petitioner is only the legal heir of the declarant. Several proceedings in the matter had attained finality and “cashew estate” was not an exempted plantation at the time when the ceiling proceedings aforesaid attained finality. The amendment had come into effect only with effect from 4.6.2012 and is notified on 9.6.2012. Any right for claiming exemption under the amended provision of Section 81(1)(f) cannot have application in respect of a proceeding which has already become final. Under such

¶48

W.P(C) No. 4661 of 2014 -: 7 :-

¶49

circumstances, Ext. P3 amendment will not give any benefit to the petitioner to claim that he is entitled for holding the said land.

¶50

In the light of the aforesaid factual situation, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

¶51

Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge.

¶52

Tds/

Balasubramanian v. the Taluk Land Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasubramanian 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.G. Antony Vs State of Kerala

Usha Breco Limited Vs the Commissioner of Land Revenue

Sophia.M Vs Asha.v

Noushad Ali Vs M.P.Ajithkumar

N. Janardhanan Nair Vs Sri. Bharath Bhooshan E.K

Easwari Vs v.K.Vijayan