Allowed

Mujeeb Rahman v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Sept 2016CRP/295/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition allowed. Order passed by Taluk Land Board dismissing petitioner's claim under Section 85(8) of Kerala Land Reforms Act was quashed for being a non-speaking order. Matter remitted for fresh disposal with opportunity to adduce evidence.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; impugned order set aside; matter remitted to Taluk Land Board for fresh disposal with opportunity to adduce evidence; disposal to be expedited within four months.

Mujeeb Rahman Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/7TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

CRP.No. 295 of 2010

¶6

SM 994/1976 OF TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD DATED 25-02-2010

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/CLAIM PETITIONER WHO WAS NOT A PARTY ORIGINALLY WHO SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE ORDER UNDER SECTION 85(8) OF KERALA LAND REFORMS ACT:

¶8

MUJEEB RAHMAN, P.M.AGRO FOOD, PATTATHALACHI ROAD, EDUPPUKULAM P.O., ELAPPULLY-1.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.JAWHAR HAMID SRI.DITTO.K.THOMAS SRI.V.SUNIL KUMAR (PANACHAMOODU)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/GOVERNMENT:

¶11

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

¶12

2. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶13

*** 3. PANKAJAKSHI AMMA, (DELETED) W/O. (LATE). DAMODHARN NAIR, PARYANKODE, KAKKAYUR, KODUVAYUR, CHITTUR.**

¶14

4. SUBRAMANIAN, S/O. RANGASWAMY KOUNDER, R.V.PUTHUR, CHITTUR.

¶15

5. SENTHIL KUMR, S/O. KUMARASWAMY KOUNDER NEYTHALA, LINGAKOUNDER PALAYAM, ELUPPULLY-1.

¶16

6. SUSHEELA, W/O. SUBRAMANIAN, KAMARAJ NAGAR, R.V.PUTHUR.P.O., KOZHINJAMPARA (VIA), CHITTUR.

¶17

7. SAJEEVAN, S/O. KARUNAKARN, THEKKETHARA HOUSE, AMBATTUPALAYAM, CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR.

....2/-

..2..

CRP.No. 295 of 2010

¶22

8. KUNJULEKSHMI, W/O. KARUNAKARAN, (DELETED) THEKKETHARA HOUSE, AMBATTUPALAYAM, CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR.

¶23

9. RAJEEVAN, S/O. KARUNAKARAN, THEKKETHARA HOUSE, AMBATTUPALAYAM, CHITTUR, VILLAGE, CHITTUR.

¶24

10. PONNUTHAI, W/O. (LATE).PARISITHU, VOPPAMARATHOTTAM, KANNAMPALAYAM, COIMBATORE.

¶25

*** 11. CHANDRLEKHA, W/O. SUBBAMANI, (DELETED) KULUKKAPARA, PALANIYA PALAYAM.P.O., KOZHINJAMPARA (VIA) CHITTUR.**

¶26

12. P.HEMALATHA, D/O. PANKAJAKSHI AMMA, NEDUNGODE VEEDU, ETHANUR.P.O, PALAKKAD.

¶27

13. R.MALLIKAKUMARI, D/O. PANKAJAKSHI AMMA, SARANYA, POOLLAPARAMBU, PALLASSENA, CHITTUR.

¶28

*** RESPONDENTS 3,8 & 11 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 22/6/2016 IN IA.1336/2016. R1 & 2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.GOPINATHAN R9 BY ADV. SRI.M.C.GOPI**

¶29

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

¶31

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶32

======================== C.R.P No.295 of 2010

¶33

========================== Dated this the 29^th day of September, 2016

¶34

ORDER

¶35

This is a revision filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad in S.M No.994 of 1976 rejecting the claim made by the petitioner under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The proceedings were initiated against the declarant for presumption of excess land under Section 85 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and proceedings were initiated and certain extent of land were directed to be surrendered by the declarant. The petitioner who is not a party to the proceedings, when came to know about the proceedings filed a claim before the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad under Section 85(8) of Kerala Land Reforms Act seeking exemption of his land from surrender. But, the Taluk Land Board without considering the application on merit dismissed the application only on the ground as belated.

¶36

C.R.P No.295/2010

¶37

¶38

Dissatisfied with the same, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner.

¶39

Heard Sri.George Varghese Perumpallikkuttiyil,

¶40

counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. M.L.Sajeev, Special Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri.M.C.Gopi, counsel appearing for the 9^th respondent. Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the Taluk Land Board had not considered his petition on merit but only dismissed on the ground that it was belated, which is not sustainable in law.

¶41

On the other hand, the special Government Pleader

¶42

submitted that it is a belated application and he was only an assignee from the declarant.

¶43

It is an admitted fact that surrender proceedings have been initiated against the declarant stating that he is in possession of excess land which has to be surrendered as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. When it was noted, he

¶44

C.R.P No.295/2010

¶45

¶46

was asked to surrender 28.75 acres of land. The declarant namely Pazhaniswamy Koundar filed C.R.P No.5749 of 1976 before this Court and that was set aside and matter was remanded. Again some orders have been passed revising the earlier order. But that was also challenged by filing C.R.P Nos.1220 of 2000 and 1662 of 2000 and those revisions were also allowed by this Court and again matter was remitted to the Taluk Land Board for fresh consideration. It was at that time when the person came to know about the proceedings that their lands were also included, some of the parties filed application to exempt the properties in their possession and the petitioner is also one such person filed an application under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. But, all those applications were rejected by the Taluk Land Board on the ground that they are not entitled to get the benefit and the petition filed by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that it was filed belatedly. Nothing

¶47

C.R.P No.295/2010

¶48

¶49

was mentioned about his grievance in the petition and his claim was not even adjudicated by the Taluk Land Board. When a claim petition has been filed, there is a duty cast on the Taluk Land Board to go into the allegations and claim made and record a finding on that aspect before accepting or rejecting the claim made by the party, which was not done in this case. Non speaking order has been passed in respect of the claim made by the petitioner in the claim petition under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and such an order is unsustainable in law as it is no order in the eye of law. So, the order passed by the Taluk Land Board has to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted to the court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

¶50

So the revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the Taluk Land Board rejecting the claim of the petitioner in S.M No.994 of 1976 of Taluk Land Board, Palakkad is

¶51

C.R.P No.295/2010

¶52

¶53

set aside and the matter is remitted to the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad for fresh disposal. Taluk Land Board, Palakkad is directed to give an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence in respect of his claim and then pass appropriate orders considering the claim made by him regarding its admissibility or otherwise in accordance with law.

¶54

Registry is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Taluk Land Board immediately. The Taluk Land Board is directed to expedite disposal of the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of this judgment after giving notice to the claimant and affording an opportunity of additional evidence and hearing the matter.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

K.RAMAKRISHNAN , JUDGE

¶57

vdv/03/10/16

Mujeeb Rahman v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mujeeb Rahman v. 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

Mayilvahanam Funds Vs P.Sheena

Sudhakaran Vs State Bank of Travancore

Chess Association Vs M.B.Muareedharan

George Joseph Vs Thressa George

Sajitha Kumari Vs Prajith

M. George Vs Mathew Ap. George