Kerala High Court
The Taluk Land Board vs Gokulabhai on 18 June, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
WA NO. 1440 OF 2019 1 2025:KER:43339
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WA NO. 1440 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.07.2018 IN WP(C) NO.17530 OF
2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WP(C):
1 THE TALUK LAND BOARD
CHITTUR, PALAKKAD-678101.
2 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS),
TALUK OFFICE, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD-678101.
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND REFORMS),
PALAKKAD-678001.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.H.HANIL kUMAR
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & ADDL. RESPONDENTS 4 TO 8 IN THE WP(C):
1 GOKULABHAI
W/O.LATE E.V.NARAYANAN, EDACHIRA HOUSE, NENMENI PO,
KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2 CHENTHAMARAKSHAN,
S/O.VELAN, PALAKODE HOUSE, BANGALAMEDU, NENMENI P.O.,
PALAKKAD-678506.
3 P.T.JOSE,
S/O.LATE P.L.THOMAS, PUNNELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, THAZHEKATTU
P.O., KOMBODINJAMAKKAL, THRISSUR-680697.
4 LIJU,
S/O.E.V.NARAYANAN(LATE), EDACHIRA VEEDU, NENMENI P.O.,
WA NO. 1440 OF 2019 2 2025:KER:43339
KOLLANGODE, PALAKKAD-678506.
5 JELSY,
D/O.E.V.NARAYANAN(LATE), EDACHIRA VEEDU, NENMENI P.O.,
KOLLANGODE, PALAKKAD-678506.
6 SHIJU,
S/O.E.V.NARAYANAN(LATE), EDACHIRA VEEDU, NENMENI P.O.,
KOLLANGODE, PALAKKAD-678506.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
SHRI.WINSTON K.V
SMT.ANU JACOB
SHRI.BHARATH KRISHNAN G.
SMT.ANJANA A.S.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON
18.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 1440 OF 2019 3 2025:KER:43339
JUDGMENT
Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
This Writ Appeal preferred by the State impugns the judgment
dated 23.07.2018 in WP(C).No.17530 of 2018.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Writ Appeal are
as follows:
The writ petitioner, Gokulabhai, is the widow of late
E.V.Narayanan, who was the declarant in C.C.583/1973 on the file of the
Taluk Land Board, Chittur. It would appear that 37.02 acres of land
(consisting of 15.02 acres in old Survey No.435Q/1pt and 22 acres of
unsurveyed land in Muthalamada 2 village) and another extent of 3.42 acres
of land (consisting of 2.84 acres in old Survey No.435Q/1 and 0.58 acres of
land in unsurveyed land), were taken possession by the Government as
excess land under the provisions of the Kerala land Reforms Act and the
Ceiling Rules framed thereunder. The Taluk Land Board, Chittur, thereafter
passed an order dated 19.04.1976 in C.C 758/1973. The entire proceedings
in that regard were duly completed in the year 1978 itself, and the excess
property of the respondent's husband (declarant) was duly taken possession
by the Government.
3. In the Writ Petition, the writ petitioner Gokulabhai was
aggrieved by Ext.P2 order dated 16.04.2018 that was passed by the
appellants herein, which contemplated the recovery of an extent of land
WA NO. 1440 OF 2019 4 2025:KER:43339
which was in her ownership and possession. A perusal of Ext.P2 order would
indicate that pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment in WP (C) No.36337/2017 that was
filed by a person alleging that his land had been erroneously included in the
excess lands surrendered by E.V. Narayanan (The declarant), the Deputy
Collector (Land Reforms) had inspected the area and found that there was, in
fact, land belonging to the petitioners in WP (C) No.36337/2017 that was
included in the surrendered lands of the original declarant, and that land had
therefore had to be re-conveyed to the rightful owners after denotifying the
reservation for public purposes. The Dy. Collector however went on to hold
that an equivalent extent of land had to be recovered from the writ
petitioners herein by re-opening the ceiling proceedings of the Taluk Land
Board.
4. The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter found as
follows in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment:
"10. It can be seen that the period of limitation mentioned in the
second proviso to subsection (9) of Sec. 85 is that the Taluk Land
Board shall not initiate any proceedings under Sec.85 after the
expiry of seven years from the date on which order sought to be
satisfied has become final. In the instant case, the said period of
limitation has expired long ago. Therefore, there is no question of
the Taluk Land Board reopening the proceedings as envisaged in
subsection (9) of Sec. 85. The petitioner's counsel would argue that
even if there is a dispute in respect of the title regarding the above
said land, specific bars have been engranted as per the first
proviso and third proviso of subsection (4) of Sec.84 of the KLR
Act, which is attracted in the instant case. One aspect of the matter
is very clear that the period of limitation prescribed in second
WA NO. 1440 OF 2019 5 2025:KER:43339
proviso to sub-section (9) of Sec. 85 of the KLR Act has expired
long and therefore there is no question of taking any action as
sought to be done as against the lands of the original declarant, at
this distance of time, as now proposed by the concluding portion of
para No.5 of Ext.P-2 order. Accordingly, it is ordered that Ext.P-2
to the limited extent it is ordered in the concluding portion of para
5 thereof that it is proposed to take over the lands from the
original declarant, etc. will stand set aside. No other issues are
decided in this case."
5. In essence, what the learned Single Judge found was that since
the finding of the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) in Ext.P2 order was
admittedly that the identified land, pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment was
included in the excess land that was surrendered by the original declarant,
the re-opening of the ceiling order of the Taluk Land Board in relation to
the original declarant was not required. It was also found that, at any rate,
the said ceiling case could not be re-opened at this distance of time in view
of the specific bar envisaged under Section 85(9) of the Kerala Land
Reforms Act.
Before us, it is the submission of the learned Government Pleader
Sri.M.H.Hanilkumar, appearing on behalf of the appellant State, that the
directions in Ext.P2 order that were impugned in the Writ Petition can be
implemented without interfering with the ceiling case. We cannot accept
the said contention since the directions in Ext.P1 judgment itself were to
identify the lands of the petitioners in WP (C) No.36337/2017, within the
lands that were surrendered as excess lands by the declarant in the instant
case. For the said exercise, the ceiling proceedings pertaining to the
WA NO. 1440 OF 2019 6 2025:KER:43339
declarant does not need to be interfered with, as rightly pointed out by the
learned Single Judge. We therefore see no merit in this Writ Appeal and it
is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.M.MANOJ
JUDGE
mns
WA NO. 1440 OF 2019 7 2025:KER:43339
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE OPTION STATEMENT DATED
05.04.1976 FILED BY E.V.NARAYANAN.
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 19.04.1976
OF THE TLB, CHITTUR.
ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 12.05.1976.
ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH DATED 12.05.1976.
ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 20.01.2017
BY THE SON OF SRI.E.V.NARAYANAN.
