Allowed

Areekkat Moideenkutty v. Taluk Land Board Tirurangadi and Others

Kerala HC31 Oct 2016WP(C)/24316/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Taluk Land Board to entertain a petition filed under Rule 136A for correction of calculation mistakes in an earlier excess land surrender order. The court held that Rule 136A allows correction of errors at any time, distinguishing statutory correction powers from review procedures, and fixed a timeline for the board to pass orders.

What did the court decide?

Directed the First Respondent to entertain the application entered as Ext.P4, consider it on merits with notice to the petitioner, and pass orders within three months from the date of the judgment wit

Areekkat Moideenkutty Vs Taluk Land Board Tirurangadi and… — 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

MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/9TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 24316 of 2009 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

AREEKAT MOIDEENKUTTY, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.AHMED HAJI, AREEKAT HOUSE,

¶8

NEDIYIRUPPU VILLAGE, KONDOTTY.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI SMT.M.KABANI DINESH SMT.M.P.SEETHA SRI.P.M.POULOSE SMT.MOLLY JACOB

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶12

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,

¶13

MALAPPURAM.

¶14

*3. THE THAHSILDAR, TIRUR,

¶15

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (DELETED)

¶16

*4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KODUVAYUR VILLAGE,

¶17

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (DELETED)

¶18

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶19

2/-

¶20

-2-

¶21

WP(C).NO.24316/2009

¶22

*RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE DELETED AND SUBSTITUTED

¶23

*RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 29/1/2010 IN IA.NO.888/2010

¶24

*RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE IMPLEADED

¶25

*R3: THE TAHSILDAR, THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶26

*R4: THE VILLAGE OFFICER, A.R.NAGAR VILLAGE, A.R.NAGAR.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶27

*ARE IMPLEADED AS R3 AND R4 IN THE PLACE OF DELETED RESPONDENTS, AS PER ORDER DATED 29/1/2010 IN IA.NO.889/2010

¶28

BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.L.SAJEEVAN

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

sts

¶31

WP(C).NO.24316/2009

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶34

P1 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/11/1986 PASSED BY THE TALUK LAND BOARD

¶35

P2 COPY OF THE REVISED ORDER DATED 7/6/2002 PASSED BY THE TALUK LAND BOARD

¶36

P3 COPY OF THE REVISED ORDER DATED 12/2/2009 PASSED BY THE TALUK LAND BOARD

¶37

P4 COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 4/7/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 136(A) OF THE KERALA LAND REFORMS TENANCY RULES BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT TALUK LAND BOARD.

¶38

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

P.V.ASHA J.

-------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.24316 of 2009

¶44

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

¶45

Dated this the 31^st day of October, 2016

¶46

J U D G M E N T

¶47

The grievance of the petitioner is that his application Ext.P4 filed before the Taluk Land Board, Thirurangady is not being considered. The petition is filed under Rule 136 A of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules 1970.

¶48

As per Ext.P1 proceedings dated 06.11.1986, petitioner was directed to surrender an extent of 10.32 Acres of excess land, at a time when he had already surrendered an extent of 20.51 Acres as interim surrender. Petitioner submits that several calculation mistakes have occurred in Ext.P1 and in case all these errors are corrected, the total extent of land, which he will have to surrender, would come to only 1.23 acres. The petitioner has explained the instances where duplications have occurred; deletions have not been effected and exemptions have not been reckoned properly. The petitioner states that all these are calculation mistakes which can be found out on a mere glance at the orders.

¶49

The main objection raised in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, is that the petition Ext.P4 is filed after a period of 23 years and a review is not permissible at this

¶50

W.P.(C) No.24316 of 2009

¶51

¶52

distance of time.

¶53

I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri. P.M.Poulose and the learned Government Pleader.

¶54

The petitioner has made it clear that the petition is filed under Rule 136 A of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules 1970, which the respondent has also understood as evident from the counter affidavit.

¶55

Rule 136 A of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules 1970, which reads as follows:

¶56

136A. Correction of mistakes in orders of Land Tribunal or the Taluk Land Board and Land Board .- Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in orders of the Land Tribunal or the Taluk Land Board and Land Board or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Land Tribunal or the Taluk Land Board or Land Board as the case may be either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.

¶57

Therefore, it can be seen that the errors which

¶58

occurred on accidental slip or omission can be corrected at any time by the Land Tribunal. Petitioner has not sought for a review of Ext.P1. When the statutory provisions provide for correction of mistakes in the orders specifically stating that

¶59

W.P.(C) No.24316 of 2009

¶60

¶61

such correction can be effected at any time, there is no justification in refusing to exercise such power on the ground that a review is not permissible.

¶62

In the above circumstances, I direct the Land Board, Thirurangady, i.e., the first respondent herein to entertain Ext.P4 application and pass orders thereon, on merits with notice to the petitioner, without any delay, at any rate, within a period of 'three months' from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶63

It is seen that this Court passed an interim order on 17.08.2009 at the time of admission of this writ petition directing the respondents not to issue pattas in respect of the excess land surrendered by the petitioner, situated in Resurvey Nos.479/2, 479/3 and 480/1 of Koduvayoor village in Tirur Taluk for a period of two months, which continues to be in force on further extension. Therefore, the said order will continue to be in force until orders are passed on Ext.P4.

¶64

With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed

¶65

of.

¶66

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶67

Areekkat Moideenkutty v. Taluk Land Board Tirurangadi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Areekkat Moideenkutty v. Taluk Land Board Tirurangadi and Others

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

P.P.Ibrahim Vs Kseb

The Secretary, Nagalassery Service Co-Op Vs M.N.Surendran & Another

Plus Louis Vs Rta, Ernakuklam and Ors.

Sree Dharma Paripalana Yogam Vs Dr.Babu Sebastian

The Management of Ambanad Estate Vs the General Secretary

A.Reghunathan Vs Asst. Excise Commissioner, Kollam and