Allowed

Kizhisseri Hamsa v. the Taluk Land Board

Kerala HC7 Mar 2024CRP/763/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against Taluk Land Board order declining ceiling claims under Sections 7(E) and 82(c) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Court found the Section 7(E) claim improperly considered and set aside the order, remitting for fresh consideration of the exemption.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Taluk Land Board order set aside; matter remitted for fresh consideration of the Section 7(E) exemption claim; Section 82(1)(c) issue left open.

Kizhisseri Hamsa Vs the Taluk Land Board — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1945
CRP NO. 763 OF 2008

¶5

IN SMP NO.15 OF 1982 OF TALUK LAND BOARD, PERINTHALMANNA

¶6

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

¶7

KIZHISSERI HAMSA
KAKOOTH AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.(DIED)*SUBSTITUTED ADDL.P2

¶8

*ADDL.P2 KADEEJA W/O KIZHISSERI HAMSA, AGED 72 YEARS, KAKKOTH AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

*(ADDL. P2 IS SUBSTITUTED IN THE PLACE OF
DECEASED 1ST PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED
27.11.2014 IN I.A. 2919/14)

¶10

BY ADV SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶12

1 THE TALUK LAND BOARD PERINTHALMANNA.

¶13

2 THE TAHSILDAR PERINTHALMANNA.

¶14

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER PERINTHALMANNA.

¶15

BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

GP- S.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶18

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

CRP NO.763 OF 2008

¶20

- 2 -

¶21

C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶22

====================

¶23

C.R.P. No.763 OF 2008

¶24

==================================

¶25

Dated this the 7th day of March, 2024

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The petitioners are aggrieved by the proceedings of
the Taluk Land Board, Perinthalmanna, dated
26.08.2008, whereby their claim under Section 7(E),
as also, under Section 82(c) has been declined.

¶28

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶29

and the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the
respondents.

¶30

3.Learned counsel for the petitioners would

¶31

submit that an assessment was made earlier,
alleging excess land beyond the ceiling limit as
against the petitioners, which was the subject

¶32

CRP NO.763 OF 2008

¶33

- 3 -

¶34

matter of C.R.P.No.2922/2000 of this Court. The

¶35

said C.R.P. was disposed of by judgment dated
21.02.2007, whereunder, the assessment order was
set aside and remanded for fresh consideration
specifically on two points, the first in respect of
the claim under Section 7(E) and also, on the basis
of the addition of one member of the statutory
family, in terms of Section 82(1)(c) of the Kerala
Land Reforms Act, 1963. As regards the first claim
based on Section 7(E), the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioners is that the
same has not been considered at all; rather
improperly considered in the impugned order of the
Land Tribunal. Instead of considering the impact
of the claim based on Section 7(E), the Board
bye-passed the same by taking a strange contention

¶36

that 85 cents of land which was purchased
subsequently in the year 1973 has already been
deducted by the Taluk Land Board, as per its order
dated 05.09.2000. Whereas, Section 7(E) was

¶37

CRP NO.763 OF 2008

¶38

- 4 -

¶39

introduced only by Act 21 of 2006, which came into
effect on 18.10.2006. Therefore, the exemption
provided under Section 7(E) cannot be considered

¶40

and a deduction in that regard cannot be effected
in the year 2000, is the submission made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. As regards the
claim under Section 82(1)(c), learned counsel would
submit that the ceiling area, on the basis of the
standard acres in terms of the number of members of

¶41

the family, has to be reckoned as on the date of
passing the subsequent order and not as per the
notified date under Section 83 of the Act, i.e., to
say 01.01.1970. Learned counsel would, however,

¶42

press the first contention for the purpose of
this C.R.P., coupled with a request to leave open
the second issue, namely the claim under
Section 82(1)(c), to be relegated for being
agitated, in case a situation arise in future. In
other words, according to the learned counsel, the
impugned order of the Taluk Land Board is liable to

¶43

CRP NO.763 OF 2008

¶44

- 5 -

¶45

be set aside on the solitary ground of improper
consideration of the claim under Section 7(E).

¶46

4. As against the above contention, learned
Government Pleader would submit that the claim
under Section 7(E) has already been considered by

¶47

the Taluk Land Board, wherefore, no interference to
the order is required.

¶48

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on

¶49

both sides, this Court finds that the manner in
which the claim under Section 7(E) of the Kerala
Land Reforms Act has been considered is far from

¶50

satisfactory. Under issue no.2, the Board found
that assessee/petitioners had transferred 85 cents
of land, which was included in the ceiling case as

¶51

per a document executed on 17.10.1973. The Board
went on to hold that the said extent of 85 cents

¶52

has already been deducted as per the Board’s order
dated 05.09.2000, with a mistake in the date of

¶53

CRP NO.763 OF 2008

¶54

- 6 -

¶55

disposal, shown as 17.10.1971; instead of
17.10.1973. This Court is at a loss to understand,
as to how the same is possible, when Section 7(E)
itself was introduced into the statute Book by
virtue of the Amendment Act No.21 of 2006, which
came into effect on 18.10.2006. A perusal of the
impugned order would not indicate that the claim
under Section 7(E) is not considered, elsewhere.

¶56

The so-called consideration of the claim under
Section 7(E) in the impugned order cannot be
sustained and the order is liable to be set aside

¶57

on that count alone.

¶58

6.This Court frowns upon the impugned order of

¶59

the Taluk Land Board, also for the reason that the
question as to whether there has been a purchase
effected by the petitioners - not exceeding an
extent of 1.61.87 hectares - on payment of
consideration from any person holding land in
excess of the ceiling area during the period

¶60

CRP NO.763 OF 2008

¶61

- 7 -

¶62

between 01.01.1970 and 18.10.2006, in terms of

¶63

Section 7(E) is not seen considered at all in the
impugned order; instead, what is seen considered is
the deduction in respect of 85 cents based on a
sale effected by the petitioners.

¶64

7.For the reasons afore referred, the impugned

¶65

order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the

¶66

Taluk Land Board for fresh consideration, in
accordance with law, as regards the claim of the
petitioners under Section 7(E) of the Kerala Land
Reforms Act. Needless to say that if the
petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Section
7(E), the extent of land, thereunder, is liable to
be excluded, deeming the petitioners as tenants
therein.

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶69

Skk//07/19=19.03.2024

Kizhisseri Hamsa v. the Taluk Land Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kizhisseri Hamsa 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

Reena. M Vs Sundareshan. K

John Sam N Vs Zion Sangam

Saheer Vachal Vs Cochin Smart City Properties Pvt.Ltd.

Cheri Mathew Vs Taluk Land Board

C.Girija Devi Vs State of Kerala

Sarojini Vs Basha