Allowed

P.T.P. Kunhamina v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Mar 2024WP(C)/4248/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition filed by a senior citizen seeking enforcement of an order exempting 3.77 acres of land from being deemed surplus. The Court directed the Taluk Land Board to finalize proceedings within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to pass final orders within 3 months; alternatively, respondents 4 and 5 to accept land revenue for exempted land.

P.T.P. Kunhamina Vs the State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 4248 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

P.T.P. KUNHAMINA,AGED 75 YEARS D/O. UMMER ABDULLA KOLACHERY AMSOM PATTAYAM DESOM, KOLACNERY .P.O, KANNUR, PIN - 670601

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) E.MOHAMMED SHAFI

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001

¶12

2 THE SECRETARY LAND BOARD, TRIVANDRUM GOVT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001

¶13

3 THE TALUK LAND BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR, PIN - 670141

¶14

4 THE THAHSILDAR,TALIPARAMBA TALUK, TALIPARAMBA P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670141

¶15

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,KOLACHERI VILLAGE, KOLACHERY P.O, KAMBIL, KANNUR, PIN - 670601

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SR.GP - JUSTIN JACOB

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

VIJU ABRAHAM,J

¶20

W.P.(C).No.4248 of 2023

¶21

Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2024

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Petitioner is a senior citizen, aged 75. The

¶24

ceiling proceedings were initiated against the father of the petitioner and an extent of 49.77 Acres of land was ordered to be surrendered. However, considering the objection submitted by the petitioner and her siblings, an extent of 3.77 Acres of land in Koalchery Village, which is included in the land ordered to be taken as surplus land was exempted as per Ext P1 order. Based on Ext P1, the petitioner approached the Village Officer for paying land revenue in respect of the above-said exempted land and the petitioner was informed that the 2^nd respondent has issued Ext

¶25

P2 communication to the 3^rd respondent seeking certain clarification in Ext P1 order. By Ext P3, 3^rd respondent issued a clarification stating the

¶26

reason as to why the property was exempted and

¶27

reported that 3.77 Acres of land could be exempted. Even after receiving Ext.P3

¶28

W.P.(C).No.4248 of 2023 3

¶29

clarification, the 2^nd respondent has issued

¶30

another communication as Ext.P4 directing the 3rd respondent to consider entire aspects once again. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that even after a delay of almost one year, no steps have been taken by the 3^rd respondent to pass fresh orders in the light of the directions contained in Ext.P4. It is in the said circumstance that the petitioner has approached this court.

¶31

A counter affidavit has been filed stating that the State Land Board has informed the Taluk Land Board about an apparent error in the order and there is no illegal exercise of power on the part of the State Land Board. This Court in

¶32

Moideen Kunhi Haji v. State of Kerala, 1987 (2)

¶33

KLT 101 have considered the power of the State Land Board to issue direction to the Taluk Land

¶34

Board invoking power under Section 101 (2) and

¶35

observed that ordinarily the Land Tribunal, Appellate Authorities and Taluk Land Board constituted under the Act have their on

¶36

independent statutory functions to discharge,

¶37

W.P.(C).No.4248 of 2023 4

¶38

uninfluenced by any direction from the Land Board,

¶39

and it is doubtful whether the “superintendence” referred to in Section 101 (2) includes judicial superintendence, or a power of any other nature to give directions or place fetters on the Taluk Land Board in the discharge of their quasi-judicial function. But it is to be taken note that Section

¶40

85 (9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 empowers the Taluk Land Board to review its own decision.

¶41

Whatever that be, there should be a finality to

¶42

the proceedings so that the petitioner who is a senior citizen, aged 75 could enjoy the benefit of

¶43

Ext.P1 order issued as early as in 2020.

¶44

Therefore, the above writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶45

1.The 3^rd respondent shall finalize the

¶46

proceedings as requested in Ext P4

¶47

strictly in accordance with law and pass

¶48

final orders within an outer limit of 3

¶49

months from the date of receipt of a

¶50

certified copy of the judgment.

¶51

W.P.(C).No.4248 of 2023 5

¶52

2.If orders are not passed as directed above, respondents 4 and 5 shall take steps to accept land revenue in respect of 3.77 Acres of land exempted as per Ext.P1.

¶53

With the above-said directions, the writ

¶54

petition is disposed of.

¶55

VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE

¶56

¶57

W.P.(C).No.4248 of 2023 6

¶58

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4248/2023

¶59

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶60

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN TLB 1601/73/TBA DATED 26.02.2020 OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19.2.2021 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION LETTER DATED 17.12.2021 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 15.2.2022 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

P.T.P. Kunhamina v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.T.P. Kunhamina v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajitha T.S. Vs the Tahasildar

James Antony Vs Director

Savithri @ Kuttiyamma Savithriamma Vs the State of Kerala

Adv. V.S. Suresh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Kumar K. T. Vs 1. State of Kerala represented by its Secretary to Registration Department

Chellappan Vs State of Kerala