Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs P.C.Balakrishnan Nair on 18 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1943
CRP NO. 2 OF 2009
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN TLB 839/1973 OF TALUK LAND
BOARD, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DATED 21.1.2003
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
STATE OF KERALA
BY ADV SRI.C.P.PRADEEP, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT/S:
*1 P.C.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR DIED - LRS IMPLEADED
BRAHMAGIRI 'A' ESTATE, THIRUNELLI.
*2 SMT.LAXMI BRAHMAGIRI A ESTATE DIED - LRS IMPLEADED
THIRUNELLI.
*ADDL.R3 BALACHANDRAN
S/O P.C BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, VRINDAVAN, HOUSING
COLONY, CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE-17.
*ADDL.R4 B CHANDRAN
S/O P.C BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, NO.8, KAVERI AMMA
NILAYA, LAKE CITY, 11 M.B (P.O), K.SIHALLI,
BANGALORE-76.
*ADDL.R5 LEELA
D/O P.C BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, T.C.10/30, SOUBHAGYA
PIEPPIN MOODU ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
*ADDL.R6 B RAJU
S/O P.C BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, 88 OUMKAR, ABOVE J.S.S.
FARMACY COLLEGE ON SLOWS ROAD, ELK HILL,
OOTTAKAMANDU, OOTTY, TAMILNADU.
CRP 2/2009
2
*ADDL.R7 B.MUTHU
S/O P.C BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, 9/171,
VAZHAYILATHOTTAM, MAZINAGUDI P.O., (VIA)
GHOODANALLOR, TAMILNADU.
*(ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS BEING THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE
DECEASED RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED
06/10/2015 IN IA.2688/2011)
**ADDL.R8 ROSAMMA JOY
W/O JOY C.J, 'GONIGOPAL', RESIDING AT DHANUGULA
VILLAGE, SOUTH COORG DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE.
**ADDL.R9 DEEPTI JOY
D/O JOY C.J, 'GONIGOPAL', RESIDING AT DHANUGULA
VILLAGE, SOUTH COORG DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE.
**(ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED
19/02/2016 IN IA.2837/2013)
BY ADVS.
SRI.I.J.AUGUSTINE
SRI.BASANT BALAJI FOR R4 & R6
SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
SMT.J.KASTHURI
SRI.MOHAN C.MENON
SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN FOR R5
SRI.N.NARAYANAN NAIR
SRI.M.NOOHUKUNJU SAHIB
SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI
SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH
SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
SRI.SEBIN THOMAS
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 18.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRP 2/2009
3
ORDER
Dated, this the 18th day of June, 2021
[CRP No. 2 of 2009]
Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the
Taluk Land Board, Mananthavady dated 21/01/2003 in TLB No.
839/73.
2. The facts, in brief, is this:
The 1st respondent, herein was the deceased original declarant
in the aforesaid ceiling case, which was initiated on the basis
of returns filed by him under Section 85 (2) of the Kerala Land
Reforms Act ('the Act', for short) on 25/03/1970. The Taluk
Land Board ('TLB' for short) vide order dated 27/08/1974 held
that the claimant is not liable to surrender any land as excess
CRP 2/2009
land. Subsequently, on 11/01/1973 filed another ceiling
return was filed under Section 85A of the Act, which was tried
by the TLB and the case was dropped. The State Land Board
challenged the same. In CRP No. 26/1988 before this Court
and the same was dismissed. This Court's order was
challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and vide order in
Civil Appeal No. 5260/1995, the order of this Court was set
aside and the ceiling case was remanded to the TLB for fresh
disposal. Vide order dated 27/09/1997, the TLB again ordered
that there was no excess land to be surrendered by the
declarant. That was again challenged before this Court by
filing CRP No. 1486/1999 and again, this Court was pleased to
dismiss it, and consequent to the dismissal of the application
CRP 2/2009
for condonation of delay, the State Land Board directed the TLB
to reopen the matter under Section 85/9A of the Act.
Accordingly, the aforesaid proceedings in TLB No. 839/73, was
initiated. Notice was issued to the declarant and his wife to
show cause why the matter should not be reopened. Vide
order dated 21/01/2003, without adverting to the issues to be
considered, the TLB once again dropped all further
proceedings against the declarants. Hence, this revision.
3. The main grounds on which the impugned order is
challenged are that the eligibility for exemption under Section
81 of the Act for coffee plantation of 45 acres in Survey No.
88/1 A 2 A1 is not proved. And secondly, the eligibility for
exemption of 6 acres of cattle path and 13.15 acres towards
CRP 2/2009
building, coolie lane, road, etc. was not considered. And
thirdly, the exemption given to 12.58 acres of orange
plantation is not in accordance with the provisions in the Act.
4. The TLB has not considered these aspects and has
reproduced the statement of the declarant without any
evidence or proof and has granted exemption to the entire
area, and hence, the State seeks interference of this Court in
revision.
5. The original respondents died and their legal heirs
are on the party array. Portion of estates were sold to third
parties, and they too have been impleaded as additional
respondents.
6. Heard the Government Pleader and the learned
CRP 2/2009
counsel appearing for the respondents.
7. The original first respondent had approached this
court and filed O.P. No. 12128/1992-B challenging the notice
under S.85 (9A) of the Act, and vide judgment dated
24/09/1992, this Court held that the Kerala Land Reforms
(Amendment) Act,1989 came into force on 30-05-1989, and
as per the proviso to Sub-section 9A, the TLB shall not reopen
any case after the expiry of three years from the date of
coming into force of the said amendment. In the instant case,
no order was passed within the period of three years, and so
the notice to reopen is unsustainable. Hence, the notice was
ordered to be quashed. The said judgment has not been
challenged by the State. It is true that the Apex Court had
CRP 2/2009
allowed the appeal and set aside the Order of this Court in
C.R.P 26/1988. But that was an order pertaining to the
challenge to the invoking of Section 85(7) of the Act.
Consequent to that, the TLB considered the matter afresh as
directed by the Supreme Court, and decided in favour of the
declarant. The challenge made by the State in C.R.P
No.1436/1999 was dismissed consequent to the dismissal of
the application for condonation of delay. Hence, the
proceedings initiated by the State all over again, is not
sustainable.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON
JUDGE
jg
