M.R.Dhinil vs Taluk Land Board
2021 Latest Caselaw 9533 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

  MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1943

                   CRP(LR).No.19 OF 2021

 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.12.2019 IN LB 541/73 PASSED BY
               THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD


REVISION PETITIONER/CLAIMANT:

            M.R.DHINIL
            AGED 32 YEARS
            S/O.M.S.RAMANCHANDRAN, TRUSTEE, ZERO LANDLESS
            TRUST, AHALYA HEALTH, HERITAGE AND KNOWLEDGE
            VILLAGE, ELAPULLY, PALAKKAD

            BY ADVS.
            SHRI.K.B.GANGESH
            SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH
            SMT.ATHIRA A.MENON
            SRI.AMAL S KUMAR

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & STATE:

      1     TALUK LAND BOARD
            (THE OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER),
            PALAKKAD 678 001

      2     THE TAHSILDAR
            PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD 678 001

      3     THE SEPCIAL DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (LR)
            TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD 678 001

      4     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
            PUDUSSERY EAST VILLAGE, PALAKKAD 678 001
 C.R.P.(LR)No.19 of 2021

                           :-2-:

      5     THE STATE OF KERALA
            REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

            R2-5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
            SRI. M.I. JOHNSON (SR.G.P)

     THIS CRP (LAND REFORMS ACT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
 C.R.P.(LR)No.19 of 2021

                                       :-3-:

            Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2021


                                  O R D E R

The petitioner challenges in this revision

petition the order dated 26.12.2019 passed by the

Taluk Land Board, Palakkad, in LB No.541/73. He

claims to be the owner in interest of 3.3610

hectors of land obtained under document

No.803/2014. The property admittedly forms part of

828.97 acres of land directed to be surrendered by

the Taluk Land Board as per order dated 12.12.2013.

The declarant T.Ammukutty Amma was found to be

holding possession of said land in excess of the

ceiling limit.

2. The contentions raised by the petitioner

before the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad, were two

fold.

(i) The property purchased by him was

possessed or owned by his predecessors-in- C.R.P.(LR)No.19 of 2021

:-4-:

interest prior to 01.01.1970, and

(ii) His predecessor being a deemed tenant

under Section 7E of the Kerala Land

Reforms Act, 1963, the property purchased

by him was liable to be exempted.

3. These two contentions were rejected by the

impugned order, for the reason that they were not

proved by any documents.

4. I heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner as well as the learned Government

Pleader.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the Land Tribunal, Kuzhalmannam, in

O.A.No.771/1974 assigned the rights and interest of

the landlords in favour of his predecessor and

there is ample evidence to prove that Section 7E of

the Kerala Land Reforms Act applies to the facts of

this case. The Land Board did not accept the plea C.R.P.(LR)No.19 of 2021

:-5-:

under Section 7E holding that petitioner failed to

produce copy of J Form. The submission made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner is that

petitioner obtained copy of proceedings in

O.A.No.771/1974 under the Right to Information Act

and it shows that there is endorsement to the

effect that parties have filed J Form though copy

of the form was missing from the file. It was

submitted that the petitioner is in a position to

substantiate the claim under Section 7E, for which

he sought an opportunity to be given for adducing

evidence.

6. The Taluk Land Board also held that

petitioner failed to produce documents to prove

that the property in question was in the possession

of the predecessors-in-interest prior to

01.01.1970. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that he has necessary documents in his C.R.P.(LR)No.19 of 2021

:-6-:

possession to prove prior possession as well.

7. After hearing the submissions made by the

learned counsel appearing on both sides, I am of

the view that an opportunity shall be given to the

petitioner to prove his claim within a time frame

to be fixed by this Court. Having regard to the

fact that the proceedings before the Land Tribunal

are very old, the petitioner is called upon to

produce necessary documents in support of his claim

within a period of three months from today.

In the result, the original petition is allowed

setting aside the order dated 26.12.2019 in so far

as it affects the petitioner alone and the Taluk

Land Board, Palakkad, is called upon to decide and

dispose of the petition in accordance with law

after hearing him in the light of the observations

made above, within a period of three months from

the date of production of certified copy of this C.R.P.(LR)No.19 of 2021

:-7-:

judgment. The petitioner is directed to co-operate

with speedy disposal of the matter. It is made

clear this Court has not expressed any view on

merits of the claim advanced by the petitioner.

All pending interlocutory applications are

closed.

Sd/-

T.V.ANILKUMAR JUDGE ami/ C.R.P.(LR)No.19 of 2021

:-8-:

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 DOCUMENTS IN OA NO.771/1974 ON THE FILE OF LAND TRIBUNAL, KUZHALMANNAM OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.