High Court set aside an order directing a legal heir and absolute owner to surrender land classified as excess, finding the tribunal failed to apply mind to possession facts and applicable partition deeds.
Impugned order dated 06.01.2015 set aside; matter remitted to second respondent for fresh consideration within three months.
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 K.HARILAL
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/21ST ASWINA, 1938
CRP(LR).NO. 90 OF 2015 (A)
(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2015 IN TLB(CR) 108 CHR OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD, CHENGANOOR)
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER NO.4
SARASAMMA PILLAI, AGED 71 YEARS, D/O.MEENAKSHI PILLAI, LALITHA SADANAM, MEMANA, OACHIRA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK-690 526.
BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. TALUK LAND BOARD CHAIRMAN/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CHANGANNOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA-689 121.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. HASHIR K.M.
THIS CRP (LAND REFORMS ACT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-10-2016, ALONG WITH CRP(LR).NO. 91 OF 2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
DST
K. HARILAL, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P.(LR) Nos. 90 & 91 of 2015
- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of October, 2016
O R D E R
The petitioner in C.R.P(LR) No.90 of 2015 is the owner in possession of 70 cents of property comprised in R.S. No.374/3 of Ala village, Chenganoor Taluk, Alappuzha District. The petitioners in C.R.P(LR) No.91 of 2015 are the owners in possession of 70 cents of property comprised in R.S.No.374/3 of Ala village, Chenganoor Taluk, Alappuzha District. The petitioners are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the respective properties by virtue of partition deed No.1817 of 1999 dated 07.06.1999 and they have been paying tax for the respective properties, after effecting mutation.
under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') . The Taluk
C.R.P.(LR) Nos. 90 & 91 of 2015
-: 2 :-
Land Board had passed a revised order on 30.03.1989, directing the declarant to surrender 11.734.980 Acres of property and the said land was surrendered by the declarant, 'Sri. Krishna Pillai Narayana Pillai', pursuant to the direction of this Court in C.R.P. No.2479 of 1981. But, certain persons, under the guise of 'Kudikidapu', trespassed into the said property and occupied it. So, the Land Board again passed an order dated 27.01.2000, directing the declarant to surrender another extent of land in lieu of the land so occupied by the alleged “Kudikidappukars”.
C.R.P.(LR) Nos. 90 & 91 of 2015
-: 3 :-
'excess land' to be surrendered by the declarant and on that basis and circumstance, the partition deed got registered. According to the petitioners, their properties are wrongly included in the property to be surrendered in the order dated 27.01.2000, without obtaining a Report from the Authorised Officer, as regards the title and possession over the properties. Aggrieved by the illegal inclusion of their properties in the 'excess area', they had preferred representation under Section 85(9A) of the Act before the 2nd respondent on 30.01.2013. But, thereafter, nothing happened, as there was no legally constituted Land Board at Chengannur for a long time. So, the petitioners preferred Writ Petition (Civil) No.2680 of 2014 and this Court on 20.03.2014 disposed of the Writ Petition (Civil), directing the 2nd respondent to consider the request made by the petitioners within 'three months', after affording an opportunity of being heard to the
C.R.P.(LR) Nos. 90 & 91 of 2015
-: 4 :-
petitioners. In compliance with the said order, the 2nd respondent conducted a personal hearing and recorded the petitioners' statement and the petitioners produced the documents which would prove their absolute title and possession over the respective properties. But, the 2nd respondent, without looking into the documents produced by the petitioners, passed the impugned order with a finding that the petitioners are deemed tenants under Section 7(E) of the Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005 and directed them to produce the certificate of purchase under Section 106(B) for deleting their property from the ceiling area of the declarant. The legality and propriety of the aforesaid finding, whereby the Land Board rejected the request to delete their properties from the ceiling area, are challenged in these Civil Revision Petitions (LR).
C.R.P.(LR) Nos. 90 & 91 of 2015
-: 5 :-
petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order, directing the declarant to surrender the land, including the land which is in absolute ownership, possession and enjoyment of the petitioners, was passed after effecting the partition deed No.1817 of 1999. The order directing the declarant to surrender the land was passed on 27.01.2000 only. The said order was passed without obtaining the Report and mahazar from the Authorised Officer. Similarly, they have never been the deemed tenants under Section 7E of the Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005. The 2nd respondent has miserably failed to apply his mind over the facts of the case and the petitioners' claim thereunder.
C.R.P.(LR) Nos. 90 & 91 of 2015
-: 6 :-
are the legal heirs of 'Sri. Krishna Pillai Narayana Pillai', the declarant, against whom the order dated 27.01.2000, directing to surrender 11.734.980 Acres, was passed. According to the petitioners, they are in absolute possession and enjoyment of respective shares, by virtue of partition deed No.1817 of 1999 dated 07.06.1999 and they have been paying tax, after effecting mutation, as evidenced from Receipt No.27 of Book No.148 maintained by the Revenue Authorities.
C.R.P.(LR) Nos. 90 & 91 of 2015
-: 7 :-
after effecting partition, is the grievance of the petitioners. But, going by the impugned order, it could be seen that the 2nd respondent has not addressed the said grievance, in spite of the direction of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.2680 of 2014.
they have never been deemed tenants and they are the legal heirs of the declarant only. Needless to say, the impugned order was passed without understanding the real and actual grievance of the petitioners. If the petitioners' properties were included erroneously, certainly, the 2nd respondent is liable to reduce the same from the ceiling area. However, I
have no hesitation to hold that the 2nd respondent has not applied his mind, while passing the impugned order.
06.01.2015 will stand set aside, with respect to the
C.R.P.(LR) Nos. 90 & 91 of 2015
-: 8 :-
petitioners herein and the matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent, for fresh consideration. The 2nd respondent shall reconsider the matter and pass orders afresh, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
These Civil Revision Petitions (LR) are allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
K. HARILAL,
JUDGE
DST
//True copy//
P.A. To Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, being the legal heir in absolute possession via partition deed, is a deemed tenant under the Land Reforms Act.
Whether the impugned order directing surrender of land was passed without applying mind to the partition deed and possession facts.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SARASAMMA PILLAI
STATE OF KERALA
TALUK LAND BOARD CHAIRMAN
K. HARILAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
