[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
P.G.Thomas Tharakan vs The State Land Board on 14 January, 2026
WP(C) NO. 29003 OF 2025 1 2026:KER:1966
C.R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 24TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 29003 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
P.G.THOMAS THARAKAN
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O LATE P.K. GEORGE THARAKAN, AYANATTUPURAYIL,
CHEMMARAM, PADUA NAGAR RUBBER ESTATE NADUVATH PO,
NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679328
BY ADV SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE LAND BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
2 THE ZONAL TALUK LAND BOARD
KOTTAYAM & TALUK LAND BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688001
3 THE THAHSILDAR
NILAMBUR TALUK, KOZHIKODE-NILAMBUR-GUDALLUR ROAD,
NILAMBUR, PIN - 679329
WP(C) NO. 29003 OF 2025 2 2026:KER:1966
4 VILLAGE OFFICER
PULLIPPADAM VILLAGE OFFICE , NILAMBUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676542
5 VILLAGE OFFICER
MAMBAD VILLAGE OFFICE, NILAMBUR TALUK MALAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676542
6 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADV.
SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR. GP.
SRI.HARIKUMAR G NAIR- AMICUS CURIAE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
4.11.2025, THE COURT ON 14.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 29003 OF 2025 3 2026:KER:1966
C.R
JUDGMENT
The petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to the
concerned among the respondents for issuance of
necessary orders divesting the petitioner's property,
which has vested with the Government in terms of Section
85(5), read with Section 86, of the Kerala Land Reforms
Act (for short, the K.L.R.Act), in view of the fact that
petitioner's proposal, offering an alternate land, has
been accepted and acted upon by the Government.
2. When the learned Senior Government Pleader points out
a doubt as to whether vesting has taken place or not in
terms of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, in which case
only, the question of divesting arise; and also, in the
context of the availability of statutory power, if any,
for divesting a land, which has already been
vested with the Government, this Court appointed
WP(C) NO. 29003 OF 2025 4 2026:KER:1966
Sri.Harikumar.G.Nair as Amicus Curiae.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner; the
learned Government Pleader and the learned Amicus.
4. The attendant facts:-
The petitioner's father was a declarant under Section
85A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 before the 2nd
respondent/Taluk Land Board in a ceiling proceeding.
Pursuant to his death, the petitioner and his brother
got impleaded and proceeded with the case. Orders were
passed on 22/10/1977, determining the extent and
identity of the land to be surrendered. The said order
was revised on 22/12/1981 by the Taluk Land Board under
Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
Accordingly, the petitioner and his brother were held
liable to surrender lands situated in survey nos. 616/2,
619/1 and 618 of Mampad Village (Nilambur Taluk), of
which, the 5th respondent is the Village Officer. On
WP(C) NO. 29003 OF 2025 5 2026:KER:1966
17/4/2012, the petitioner's brother, on behalf of the
petitioner too, preferred a re-option statement to
surrender another land, instead of the land ordered by
virtue of the revised order dated 22/12/1981.
Accordingly, 5.81575 acres of land situated in resurvey
no.1 of Pullipadom Village of the same Taluk was
offered. The revised option statement is produced at
Ext.P1. The offer vide Ext.P1 was not acted upon, which
persuaded the petitioner to file a Writ Petition before
this Court as W.P(C)No.10905/2022, which culminated in
Ext.P2 judgment. Pursuant to Ext.P2, the offer vide
Ext.P1 was accepted, and the 4th respondent/Village
Officer took possession of that land surrendered as per
Ext.P1 re-option. Ext.P3 communication evidence the
same. Inasmuch as, an alternate land was surrendered
vide Ext.P1, which was accepted and acted upon by the
Government, it is the petitioner's claim that the land
which technically vests with the Government by virtue of
WP(C) NO. 29003 OF 2025 6 2026:KER:1966
the revised order dated 22/12/1981, to the extent
substituted by Ext.P1, has to be divested, so as to
bring back the ownership and possession to the
petitioner and his brother. It is in the above factual
backdrop that the necessity to examine the question of
the property vesting with the Government, and the
possibility of an Order directing de-vesting etc arose.
5. Learned Amicus would primarily submit that, for a
correct understanding of the scope of Section 86 of the
Kerala Land Reforms Act, reference to Chapter III, which
deals with 'restriction on ownership and possession of
land in excess of ceiling area and disposal of excess
lands', is required.
6. Learned Amicus first invited this Court's attention
to Section 82, which speaks about the ceiling area,
depending upon the status of the declarant. Thereafter,
Section 85 was referred to, and this Court has been
WP(C) NO. 29003 OF 2025 7 2026:KER:1966
taken in detail to the various provisions of Section
85. Section 85, it was pointed out, provides that, if a
person owns or holds land in excess of the ceiling area
as on the notified date, such excess land shall be
surrendered, in the manner provided under the statute.
Section 85(2) mandates the person owning or holding such
excess land to file a statement within the prescribed
period before the Land Board intimating the location,
extent and such other particulars as may be prescribed
of all the lands, including lands exempted under Section
81 owned or held by such person, and indicating the
lands proposed to be surrendered. The course upon
receipt of such statement under Section 85(2) is
prescribed in Section 85(5), whereby, the Land Board has
to transfer such statement to the Taluk Land Board in
order to verify the particulars mentioned in the
statement, to ascertain whether the person to whom the
statement relates owns or holds any other land, and
WP(C) NO. 29003 OF 2025 8 2026:KER:1966
finally to determine the extent and the identity of the
land to be surrendered, by an order to be passed to that
effect. If the person who holds such excess land fails
to file a statement as required by Section 85(2), the
remedy is provided under Section 85(7), where the Land
Board again has to intimate that fact to the Taluk Land
Board, and the Taluk Land Board, after necessary enquiry
determine, by order, the extent and other particulars of
the land, which is to be surrendered. So it was
pinpointed by the learned Amicus that an Order comes in
two stages; the first at Section 85(5), and then at
Section 85(7), both by the Taluk Land Board. It is in
the backdrop of the above two proceedings that Section
86 has to be interpreted, which speaks about vesting of
excess land in the Government. Such vesting takes place
on the determination of the extent and other particulars
of lands to be surrendered under Section 85. Upon such
determination, the ownership or possession, or both, as
WP(C) NO. 29003 OF 2025 9 2026:KER:1966
the case may be, of the land shall vest in the
Government, free from all encumbrances, and Taluk Land
Board shall issue an order accordingly, the third
occasion, where issuance of an order is made mention of
by the statute. The actual surrender takes place after
the issuance of such Order under Section 86(1), as
mandated by Section 86(2).
7. Coming to the facts, the learned Amicus would submit
that the Order, which is made mention of in paragraph 3
of the Writ Petition, referred to as a revised Order
dated 22/12/1981, has to be treated as an Order passed
under Section 86 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, and it
may have to be presumed that an Order under Section
85(5), after giving an option under Section 85(2), would
have preceded the revised Order dated 22/12/1981. The
difficulty arises because, neither the Order dated
22/10/1977, nor the one dated 22/12/1981, has been
produced before this Court. A final call in this regard
WP(C) NO. 29003 OF 2025 10 2026:KER:1966
can be taken only after seeing the orders, is the
submission made by the learned Amicus. Relying on the
law laid down in George Joseph v. Taluk Land Board,
Meenachil [1976 KLT 917], learned Amicus would submit
that Ext.P1, which accepted an option after 30 years
from the date of revised Order, cannot be sustained in
law. The learned Amicus would, however, submit that,
inasmuch as Ext.P1 Order is neither challenged by the
petitioner nor by the Government, the settled factual
position can be left undisturbed. On the question of
vesting, learned Amicus would submit that the vesting
took place when the Order under Section 86 has been
issued. If this Court is inclined to accept the revised
Order dated 22/12/1981 as one passed under Section 86,
then the vesting has already taken place and there is
no provision under the scheme of the statute enabling
divesting of the land. In this context, the learned
Amicus would submit that the same has to be done by
WP(C) NO. 29003 OF 2025 11 2026:KER:1966
invoking this Court's constitutional powers under
Article 226, especially taking into account the rights
of the petitioner under Section 300A of the
Constitution, as otherwise, it amounts to unjust
enrichment for the Government and gross injustice to
the petitioner.
8. This Court, on finding that the orders dated
22/10/1977 and 22/12/1981 are required to be perused -
but have not been produced along with the
Writ Petition - directed the learned Senior Government
Pleader to produce the same. Accordingly, copies of the
said orders have been made available before this Court,
when the matter is taken up in the afternoon session.
For the purpose of this Writ Petition, the revised Order
dated 22/12/1981 alone is required and the same is, for
the sake of convenience, marked as Court Ext.C1. The
petitioner has produced a typed copy of this Order, and
WP(C) NO. 29003 OF 2025 12 2026:KER:1966
the same will stand marked as Court Ext.C1(a).
9. The following excerpts from Ext.C1 Order at page no.8
are relevant and extracted herebelow:-
"The ownership and possession of the land
described in part D of this Order shall subject to
the provisions of the KLR Act vest in govt. free
from all encumbrances from the date of this Order.
Notice will issue accordingly to Sri.P.K.Tharakan
to surrender possession of the above lands to the
Tahsildar Shertallai, Vaikom and Ernad, failing
which the Tahsildars shall take possession of the
land or assume ownership thereof on behalf of the
Government".
10. Part D of Ext.C1 is also extracted herebelow:-
"PART D
Particulars of the extent (in acres and cents) and
identity of the lands to be surrendered after
excluding lands taken possession u/s 86(5).
WP(C) NO. 29003 OF 2025 13 2026:KER:1966
TALUK VILLAGE SURVEY EXTENT WHETHER NAME AND
NO. OWNED ADDRESS OF
OR HELD THE PERSON
BOUND TO
SURRENDER
Shertallai Thuravoor 4/1A-23 0-67-000 P.K.George
South Tharakan,
Ayyanattu
Naduvile
veettil
Parayil
619/1 8-04-575
618/-
Shertallai Vayalar 5/1-8 0-35-000
West
TOTAL 9-06-575
11. In this regard, it is relevant to note that, out
of the three items of properties referred to in Part D
of Ext.C1, the question of substitution in terms of
Ext.P1 pertains to item no.2 alone, having an extent
WP(C) NO. 29003 OF 2025 14 2026:KER:1966
of 8.04575 acres. Out of the said extent of 8.04575
acres, land having an extent of 2.53 acres in Survey
No.618 of Mampad Village, Ernad Taluk (presently
Nilambur taluk) was surrendered. It is in respect of
the remaining 5.81575 acres that the petitioner sought
for substitution vide Ext.P1 and land having an equal
extent in Pullipadom Village was surrendered. Thus,
5.81575 acres first above referred comprised in survey
no.616/2, 618 and 619/1 of Mampad Village has to be
divested in favour of the petitioner.
12. A perusal of the first above extracted portion of
Ext.C1 would leave no room for any doubt as regards
the vesting of the property covered by Ext.C1 order
with the Government. This Court is in agreement with
the above exposition of law made by the learned
Amicus.
13. It remains a fact that the alternate proposal made
WP(C) NO. 29003 OF 2025 15 2026:KER:1966
vide Ext.P1 has been accepted by the Government, as
could be seen from Ext.P3. Learned Senior Government
Pleader would submit that the said land has been given
to the landless persons under the Government scheme.
It could be seen that the proposal vide Ext.P1 has
been accepted, and acted upon by the Government. In
such circumstances, if the property covered by Ext.C1,
to the extent substituted by Ext.P1, has to remain
with the Government, the petitioner will be deprived
of both the lands, impinging his valuable rights under
Article 300A of the Constitution, putting him on
serious jeopardy. That apart, it amounts to unjust
enrichment of the Government as well.
14. It is true that there is no provision under the
K.L.R Act for issuance of an Order divesting a land,
which has already been vested with the Government in
terms of Section 85(5) of the K.L.R. Act. However, in
WP(C) NO. 29003 OF 2025 16 2026:KER:1966
an extraordinary situation like the instant one faced
by the petitioner, this Court may have to extend
extraordinary relief, the failure of which would
result in a travesty of justice. In the circumstances,
this Court is inclined to invoke its powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution, in directing the 6 th
respondent to pass necessary Orders divesting the
above referred 5.81575 acres of land to the
petitioner.
15. Learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that
the Principal Secretary (Revenue) is the authority
competent to issue an Order divesting the land, which
has vested with the Government. According to the learned
Government Pleader, the 6th respondent/State,
represented by the Chief Secretary, may not be the
appropriate person who could be directed to do the same.
In the circumstances, the Principal Secretary,
WP(C) NO. 29003 OF 2025 17 2026:KER:1966
Department of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Palayam,
Thiruvananthapuram- 695 001, is suo motu impleaded as
the additional 7th respondent. Accordingly, the 7th
respondent will stand directed to issue necessary orders
divesting the Government's ownership and possession over
5.81575 acres in survey no.616/2, 618 and 619/1 of
Mampad Village to the petitioner. The above direction
shall be complied within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The
petitioner will produce a copy of the judgment before
the additional 7th respondent, for compliance.
16. It was pointed by learned Senior Government Pleader
that certain persons have trespassed into the said land.
This Court need not make any observation in this regard,
and the parties will be at liberty to initiate
appropriate proceedings as per law, insofar as eviction
of the trespassers, if any, is concerned.
WP(C) NO. 29003 OF 2025 18 2026:KER:1966
17. This Court places on record its sincere appreciation
for the substantive effort taken by the learned Amicus,
Sri.Harikumar.G.Nair in submitting before this Court
with clarity, the nuances and requirements of Chapter
III of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, especially in the
context of vesting under Section 86 of the Act.
This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
ska
WP(C) NO. 29003 OF 2025 19 2026:KER:1966
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 29003 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED OPTION STATEMENT
DATED 17-04-2012
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7-04-2022
IN WPC 10905/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
27-02-2023 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE
PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
17-05-2023
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
22-08-2023
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE
PETITIONER ON 30-10-2023 TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION CONTAINING
DIRECTIONS DATED 22-11-2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6-03-2024
IN WPC 7600/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
19-04-2025 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
WP(C) NO. 29003 OF 2025 20 2026:KER:1966
COURT EXHIBITS
Exhibit C1 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED ORDER DATED
22/12/1981
Exhibit C1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE TYPED COPY OF REVISED ORDER
DATED 22/12/1981
