Partly allowed

Ananda Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Oct 2016CRP(LR)/74/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court set aside an order by the Taluk Land Board that deemed petitioners to be tenants under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Court held that the Board failed to apply its mind to a prior direction to consider the petitioners' claim that their properties were erroneously included in a declarant's ceiling area. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Taluk Land Board to consider the petitioners' claim that their properties are not connected with the declarant and delete them from th

Ananda Krishnan Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/21ST ASWINA, 1938

¶5

CRP(LR).No. 74 of 2015 (E)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 6.1.2015 IN TLB(CR) 108 CHR OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD, CHENGANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER NO.3:

¶8

ANANDA KRISHNAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.KARUNAKARAN NAIR,"MUNDAPPALLY VEEDU", PONNEZHA, THEKKEKARA.P.O, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY VIJAYAMMA PILLAI, AGED 73 YEARS, W/O.KARUNAKARAN NAIR,"MUNDAPPALLY VEEDU", PONNEZHA,THEKKEKARA.P.O, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690107.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

TALUK LAND BOARD CHAIRMAN/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF TALUK LAND BOARD/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CHENGANNUR.P.O, ALAPPUZHA-689121.

¶13

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, THEKKEKARA.P.O, ALAPPUZHA-690107.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.HASHIR K.M.

¶15

THIS CRP (LAND REFORMS ACT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-10-2016, ALONG WITH CRP(LR) NO.75/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

OKB

¶17

K.HARILAL, J.

¶18

C.R.P.(LR) Nos.74 & 75 of 2015

¶19

Dated this the 13^th day of October, 2016

¶20

The petitioners in CRP No.74/2015 is the owner in possession of 9 cents of property comprised in Resy.No.644/3-23-3 of Thekkekkara Village, Mavelikkara Taluk, Alappuzha District. According to him, he purchased the aforesaid property by virtue of sale deed No.1311/02 dated 17.6.2002 from his mother and she in turn got the property by virtue of partition deed No.2391/76 dated 31.8.1976.

¶21

Similarly, the petitioners in CRP No.75/2015 is the owner in possession of 18 cents (7.36 Ares of property) comprised in Re-sy.No.644/3-1 of Thekkekara Village, Mavelikkara Taluk, Alappuzha District by virtue of the Registered partition deed No.2391/1976 dated 31.8.1976.

¶22

According to the petitioners, no proceedings had been initiated against the said properties under the Land Reforms Act so far and ever since the partition and

¶23

CRP(LR).74 & 75 of 2015-E :2:

¶24

purchase of the said properties they have been enjoying the properties and paying tax after effecting mutation.

¶25

But, the grievance of the petitioners is that in the year 2010 when they approached the revenue authorities to pay tax for the said properties, they refused to accept the tax from the petitioners stating that as per the order of the 2^nd respondent dated 27.1.2000 the petitioners' properties are included as excess land to be surrendered by one Krishna Pillai Narayana Pillai and the same are to be acquired with immediate effect.

¶26

It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid properties originally belonged to their grand mother Smt.Narayani Pillai and the said Narayani Pillai had no connection with Krishna Pillai Narayana Pillai, the declarant against whom the proceedings were initiated under the Land Reforms Act alleging excess land. Thus the identity of the properties is different and the revenue authorities passed the order in 1(CR)108/CHR dated 27.1.2000 including the petitioners' properties by mistake without obtaining a Mahazar and report from the Authorised Officer, under the Land Reforms Act. In short,

¶27

CRP(LR).74 & 75 of 2015-E :3:

¶28

the petitioners' properties never belonged to Krishna Pillai Narayana Pillai, the declarant against whom the proceedings were initiated under the Land Reforms Act.

¶29

Aggrieved by the refusal of tax under the threat of acquisition as excess land, the petitioners approached this Court by filing WP(C).Nos.29094/2011 & 29158/2011 respectively and this Court disposed the said writ petitions directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the correction petition, filed by the petitioners, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶30

Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment passed in the writ petitions, the petitioners were heard and the Taluk Land Board passed an order on 4.3.2013 rejecting the claim of the petitioners that the petitioners' properties have no connection with the declarant Krishna Pillai Narayana Pillai against whom the proceedings were initiated under the Land Reforms Act. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners again approached this Court by filing CRP(LR) No.394/2013 and this Court by the order dated 5.6.2014 disposed the revision again directing the Taluk Land Board to consider the claim of the petitioners in view of

¶31

CRP(LR).74 & 75 of 2015-E :4:

¶32

the documents evidencing the identity and title of their properties to be produced by the petitioners during the course of hearing before the 2^nd respondent.

¶33

In compliance with the above direction, the Taluk Land Board reconsidered the correction petitions filed by the petitioners claiming deletion of their properties from the ceiling area of Krishna Pillai Narayana Pillai and passed the impugned order directing the petitioners to produce certificates of purchase under Section 116(b) of the KLR Act, on a finding that they are deemed tenants under Section 7E of the KLR Act and the said findings are assailed in these revision petitions.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the impugned orders had been passed, in disobedience to the specific direction of this Court in the order passed in CRP (LR) No.394/2013. Though this Court specifically observed that the case of the petitioners is that the petitioners' properties are not in any way related to or connected with the family of the declarant and the said properties had been erroneously included in the

¶36

CRP(LR).74 & 75 of 2015-E :5:

¶37

declarant's account, the Taluk Land Board has not considered the above claim and passed a common order on the finding that the petitioners are 7E claimants under the Land Reforms Act. It is further submitted that the petitioners have no such case in the petitions filed before the Taluk Land Board in compliance with the direction of this Court.

¶38

Going by the order passed by this Court in CRP (LR) No.394/2013, it has been specifically observed that the case of the petitioners is that the properties are in no way related to the family of the declarant Krishna Pillai Narayana Pillai and thereafter directed the Taluk Land Board, to consider the claim of the petitioners afresh, in view of the documents evidencing identity and title, to be produced by the petitioners, before the Taluk Land Board. Going by the operative portion of the impugned order, I find that the Taluk Land Board has not applied its mind over the specific direction of this Court and passed the impugned order disobligingly. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners have no case that they are deemed tenants under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Their

¶39

CRP(LR).74 & 75 of 2015-E :6:

¶40

only request is to delete their properties from the ceiling area of the declarant, as the properties stand erroneously included in it. This Court takes notice that none of the documents produced by the petitioners are considered by the Taluk Land Board. In the above view, the impugned order is liable to be set aside at the threshold and I do so and the matters will stand remitted back to the Taluk Land Board for consideration afresh.

¶41

The petitioners are directed to produce copy of the entire records which would prove identity of their properties. On receipt of those records, the Taluk Land Board shall consider the claims of the petitioners that their properties are in no way connected with the declarant Krishna Pillai Narayana Pillai and Krishna Pillai Narayana Pillai had neither title nor possession over the respective properties of the petitioners and pass orders afresh, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the Taluk Land Board finds that the petitioners' properties have no connection with the declarant Krishna Pillai Narayana Pillai and he had neither title nor possession over the petitioners'

¶42

CRP(LR).74 & 75 of 2015-E :7:

¶43

properties, the Taluk Land Board shall pass orders deleting the said properties from the ceiling area of the declarant.

¶44

Sd/K.HARILAL, Judge.

¶45

okb

Ananda Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananda Krishnan 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

C.V. Sunny Vs T.N. Baby

V.Velayudhan Vs K.S.H.B.

Sasikala Vs K.Sukumaran

Samuel Oommen Vs the State of Kerala

Sarasamma Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Ashik Ibrahim Vs Rajappan @ Reghu