Remanded

Ramankutty v. the District Collector, Palakkad

Kerala HC22 Nov 2016WP(C)/17775/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner claimed protection as a deemed tenant under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 for land purchased from an excess-holder. The court directed the Land Tribunal to consider the claim, stay eviction proceedings based on pre-2006 judgments, and dispose of the claim within four months.

What did the court decide?

The 3rd respondent (Land Tribunal) is directed to consider the petitioner's application under Section 7E within four months and refrain from eviction proceedings based on pre-2006 judgments until the

Ramankutty Vs the District Collector, Palakkad — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 17775 of 2010 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

1. RAMANKUTTY, S/O. NARAYANAN, THEKKEMAMBRATH, UMMANEZHI AMSOM, PULAPATTA DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

2. SANTHA, D/O. NARAYANAN,

¶9

THEKKEMAMBRATH, UMMANEZHI AMSOM, PULAPATTA DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

3. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. NARAYANAN,

¶11

THEKKEMAMBRATH, UMMANEZHI AMSOM, PULAPATTA DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶12

4. PONNUMANI, S/O. NARAYANAN,

¶13

THEKKEMAMBRATH, UMMANEZHI AMSOM,PULAPATTA DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶14

5. SMITHA, D/O. NARAYANAN,

¶15

THEKKEMAMBRATH, UMMANEZHI AMSOM, PULAPATTA DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶16

6. SUDHAKARAN, S/O. NARAYANAN,

¶17

THEKKEMAMBRATH, UMMANEZHI AMSOM, PULAPATTA DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶18

7. SUNIL, S/O. NARAYANAN, THEKKEMAMBRATH, UMMANEZHI AMSOM, PULAPATTA DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶19

BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR

¶20

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶21

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD.

¶22

..2/-

¶23

..2..

¶24

WP(C).No. 17775 of 2010 (V)

¶25

2. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶26

3. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM.

¶27

4. THE TAHASILDAR, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD.

¶28

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANTHOSH PETER

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

Msd.

¶31

WP(C).No. 17775 of 2010 (V)

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶34

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE 3RD PETITIONER.

¶35

EXHIBIT P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 29.04.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶36

EXHIBIT P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 29.04.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶37

EXHIBIT P4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 29.04.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶38

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

P.V.ASHA J.

--------------------------------------------

¶45

W.P.(C).No.17775 of 2010

¶46

--------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22^nd day of November, 2016

¶47

J U D G M E N T

¶48

The petitioner has filed this writ petition alleging that the respondents were going to take steps to take over his property on the ground that the same was already declared as excess land. Petitioner claims that he is a deemed tenant entitled to the benefit of Section 7E of the Land Reforms Act, 1963 and he is liable to be exempted from the ceiling case and that his petition before the 3^rd respondent is not being considered.

¶49

Petitioner claims that 83 cents of land in Sy.No.41/1A in Kadabazhipuram village, was purchased by petitioner's mother as per sale deed No.660/1975 of Kadabazhipuram, Sub Registrar Office from late.Ramankutty Vaidyar and he acquired the same from his mother by way of a partition deed. His claim is that he is a deemed tenant under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which provides that a person in possession of any land not exceeding 1 hectare 61 ares and 87 sq. metres in extent, as on the date of commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act,

¶50

2005, acquired by way of purchase on payment of consideration from any person holding land in excess of the

¶51

W.P.(C).No.17775 of 2010

¶52

¶53

ceiling area during the period from the date of commencement of Land Reforms Act, 1963 and the date of commencement of Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005 shall be deemed to be a tenant. Therefore, he claims benefit of 7E since the property was purchased by his mother on payment of consideration from a person who was having land in excess of ceiling area.

¶54

The respondents have filed a statement stating that the declarant Sri.Ramankutty Vaidyar sold the property to the petitioner's mother, at a time when there was already a direction by the Taluk Land Board to surrender an extent of 26.51 acres of land, which included the property in question. It is pointed out that the order of the Taluk Land Board was taken up before this Court in CRP.No.423 of 76B and finally to the Supreme Court and all the cases were dismissed on 17.9.1992 in C.A. No. 1053 of 1981. The entire property which was ordered to be surrendered was found to be in possession of several persons. The counter affidavit also points out that the original suit No.282 of 1992 and A.S.No.24 of 1998 before the Sub Court, Ottapalam and the District Court, Palakkad which had ordered the parties to maintain status quo. However, ultimately all such claims were rejected. It is also stated that the Taluk Land Board had taken possession of an extent of

¶55

¶56

W.P.(C).No.17775 of 2010

¶57

21.36 acres of land on 22.02.1980 and 5.15 acres on 7.2.2007.

¶58

According to the respondents, petitioner is in possession of 0.83 acres of land in Sy.No.41/1A of Kadambazhipuram Village and the property was purchased when the Taluk Land Board had already issued orders to surrender the excess land. Therefore, it is stated that such a transaction involving the sale of property to the petitioner's mother in 1975, which is subsequent to 15.09.1963 is invalid and hence petitioner cannot have any valid right over it. However, it is stated that Govt. have not so far framed any rules for implementing Section 7E of the Act.

¶59

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Pleader.

¶60

Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, inserted by way of the amendment Act, 2005, protects the purchasers of land between 14.1.1964 and 18.10.2006 from those who were having land in excess of ceiling area notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree, or order of any court, Tribunal or any authority. Under Section 7E such purchasers are conferred the status of deemed tenants. Therefore the 3^rd respondent is bound to consider the claim of petitioner and to see whether he comes under the purview of Section 7E of the Act and to consider his claim over

¶61

W.P.(C).No.17775 of 2010

¶62

¶63

the property. Section 7E was inserted in the statute after the litigations referred to in the counter affidavit were over. In view of the non-obstente clause, the 3^rd respondent has to consider the claim of petitioner under the new provision. The respondents have stated that the application submitted by the petitioner would be considered as and when rules are framed in respect of Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Nothing stands in the way of the 3^rd respondent in considering the application of petitioner as in the case of deemed tenants under the provisions of Section 7A to D. In these circumstances, it is only proper that the respondents shall refrain from the proceedings for evicting the petitioner, on the basis of judgments and orders rendered prior to 18.10.2006, till his application is considered.

¶64

In the above circumstances the 3^rd respondent shall consider Ext.P3 petition of the petitioner within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶65

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶68

Ramankutty v. the District Collector, Palakkad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramankutty v. the District Collector, Palakkad

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

S.P.Natarajan Vs Fousiya

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Abdul Hakkem @ Hakkim

V.Ulahannan Vs State of Kerala and Others

Dr.v.Jayaprakashan Vs Kerala Agricultural University

Kamalamma Vs Ponraj

P.N.Balaram Vs Land Acquisition Officer and Special