Allowed

K.S.Sethumadhavan v. the Taluk Land Board

Kerala HC18 Sept 2023CRP(LR)/5/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order relating to the petitioner. The court directed the Taluk Land Board to reconsider the petitioner's claim concerning the conversion of exempted land and determine applicability under Section 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act within eight months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside to the extent it relates to the petitioner; Taluk Land Board directed to reconsider the petitioner's claim regarding land conversion and Section 87 applicability within eight

K.S.Sethumadhavan Vs the Taluk Land Board — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 27TH BHADRA,

¶5

¶6

CRP(LR) NO. 5 OF 2022

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SM 3/2003 OF TALUK LAND BOARD,

¶8

OTTAPALAM

¶9

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶10

K.S.SETHUMADHAVAN

¶11

AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.SUKUMARAN, KALATHIL HOUSE, ECO VILLAGE,
CHOKKANATHAPURAM P.O., MATTUMANTHA, PALAKKAD,
PIN-678 005.

¶12

BY ADVS.
T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SR.)
M.V.BALAGOPAL
PREETHI. P.V.

¶13

RESPONDENTS :

¶14

1THE TALUK LAND BOARD

¶15

OTTAPPALAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
PALAKKAD-679 101.

¶16

2 THE TAHSILDAR TALUK LAND BOARD, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD, PIN-679 101.

¶17

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER MANASSERI VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM, TALUK, PALAKKAD, PIN-679 521.

¶18

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VANIYAMKULAM - II VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD-679 521.

¶19

5 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMNT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMNT, REVENUE DEPARTRMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶20

..2..

¶21

CRP(LR) 5/2022

¶22

(SUBSTITUTED AS PER ORDER DATED 10.03.2023 IN
I.A.No.1/2023)

¶23

6 PRIYADATHA ANTHARJANAM W/O.SANKARANARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, VARIKKUMANCHERY MANA, PARUTHIPPULLY P.O, PERINGOTTUKURUSSI, PALAKKAD-678 573.

¶24

7 GOURI D/O.SANKARANARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, VARIKKUMANCHERY MANA, PARUTHIPPULLY P.O, PERINGOTTUKURUSSI, PALAKKAD-678 573.

¶25

8 PRIYADATHA D/O.SANKARANARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, VARIKKUMANCHERY MANA, PARUTHIPPULLY P.O, PERINGOTTUKURUSSI, PALAKKAD-678 573.

¶26

9 SANKARANARAYANAN S/O.SANKARANARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, VARIKKUMANCHERY MANA, PARUTHIPPULLY P.O, PERINGOTTUKURUSSI, PALAKKAD-678 573.

¶27

10 SREEDEVI D/O.SANKARANARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, VARIKKUMANCHERY MANA, PARUTHIPPULLY P.O, PERINGOTTUKURUSSI, PALAKKAD-678 573.

¶28

11 SURESH S/O.SANKARANARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI,

¶29

VARIKKUMANCHERY MANA, PARUTHIPPULLY P.O, PERINGOTTUKURUSSI, PALAKKAD-678 573.

¶30

12SUDESH UNNI.P.,
S/O.K.P.SREEKUMARAN UNNI, RESIDING AT 'AMRITHA',
GANDHI NAGAR, H.NO.109, CHEMBAVALLY ROAD,
KANIAMPURA, OTTAPALAM -679 104
(IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18.09.2023 IN
I.A.NO.2/2023)
BY ADVS.
Jayaram P
V.B.RAMANUNNI

¶31

THIS CRP (LAND REFORMS ACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 18.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

CRP(LR) 5/2022

..3..

JUDGMENT

The specific case of the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition, as argued by his learned Senior Counsel – Sri.T.Sethumadhavan, instructed by Smt.P.V.Preethy, is that the impugned order is vitiated because, the Taluk Land Board does not obtain any competence to invoke Section 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short), so as to reopen proceedings which have already been concluded as early as in the year 1978.

¶36

The learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued that, as per the order dated 06.06.1978, an extent of 52.11 Acres had already been granted the benefit of exemption in favour of the declarant; and therefore, that any action under Section 87 of the ‘Act’ could have been then initiated by the said Board only with reference to the date on which conversion of the same had taken place, even assuming if it is true. He asserted that the Report of the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Ottapalam, dated 05.09.2012, specifically states that the afore mentioned land – exempted as a private forest as per order dated 06.06.1978 – is transferred to different persons,

¶37

..4..

¶38

CRP(LR) 5/2022

¶39

portions thereof having converted into rubber plantations and other crops like coconut, as also as house sites. He argued that, therefore, the land which is converted as a rubber plantation cannot be treated as an acquisition after 01.01.1970 because, the conversion is from one exempted category to another; but that this has not been considered by the Taluk Land Board in any manner. He thus prayed that the impugned order, to the extent to which it relates to his client, be set aside.

¶40

Smt.Rekha Nair – learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, conceded that the impugned order does not mention when the transfer of the properties took place in favour of the petitioner and various other persons, as reported by the Special Deputy Tahsildar in his report dated 05.09.2012; and further admitted that Taluk Land Board has not considered the specific contention of the petitioner, that conversion of the land is from one exempted category to the other. She submitted that, therefore, if this Court is so inclined, the case of the petitioner can be reconsidered by the Taluk Land Board, particularly as to whether an action under Section 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms

¶41

..5..

¶42

CRP(LR) 5/2022

¶43

Act is presently capable of being attracted. She, however, prayed that this Court may not make any affirmative declarations in favour of the petitioner and leave it to be decided by the Taluk Land Board appropriately.

¶44

When I evaluate and consider the afore rival submissions, prima facie , there is some force in the contentions impelled by the learned Senior Counsel because, if the extent of 52.11 Acres had been exempted in favour of the declarant by the Taluk Land Board as early as in the year 1978, then it ought to have been considered when further transactions took place, and when its conversion happened, even if so.

¶45

That said, the factum of the original Private Forest having been converted is also prima facie evident from the report of the Special Deputy Tahsildar dated 05.09.2012, but that, by itself, would not be sufficient to mulct liability on the petitioner because, his specific case - that conversion of the said land into a rubber plantation would not come within his ambit, since the said conversion is from one exempted category to the other - has not been yet considered by the Taluk Land Board in any manner whatsoever.

¶46

..6..

¶47

CRP(LR) 5/2022

¶48

In the afore circumstances, I am certain that petitioner is entitled to relief.

¶49

Resultantly, I allow this Civil Revision Petition and set aside the impugned order to the extent to which it relates to the petitioner; with a consequential direction to the Taluk Land Board to consider his claim, specifically with respect to the date on which the alleged conversion took place and the manner in which it was done. The status of the person who was in charge of the property at the time of the alleged conversion, shall also be adverted to by the Taluk Land Board, while the afore exercise is completed. A final order in this regard shall be issued by the said Board, after affording necessary opportunity to the petitioner and to every other person who may be interested, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶50

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

ACR

CRP(LR) 5/2022

..7..

APPENDIX OF CRP(LR) 5/2022

¶55

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
AnnexureTRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.4177/2008
OF SRO OTTAPALAM

K.S.Sethumadhavan v. the Taluk Land Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.Sethumadhavan v. the Taluk Land Board

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

K.a.Nizar, Vs Inhs(Indian Naval Hospital Ship) Sanjivani

Preetha N.K Vs the Director, Akshaya Project

Gopalakrishnan a. Vs the Director, Akshaya Project

C.R. Shaji Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

Anjaleena John Vs Diffin Dikson

Saudambika Ravindran Vs V.K. Shalini