CRP Nos. 217, 219 & 238 of 2010

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/25TH PHALGUNA, 1937** **CRP.No. 217 of 2010 ( ) ------------------------** ## **TLB(Q) 11/1990 OF TALUK LAND BOARD, QUILANDY.** **......** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **------------** **1. GEORGE JOSEPH, S/O.VARGHESE, PERALIMALAYIL HOUSE, ADURATT, ATHOLI VILLAGE.** **2. GRAISAMMA GEORGE, W/O.GEORGE JOSEPH, PERALAIMALA ESTATE HOUSE, ADURATT, ATHOLI VILLAGE.** ## **BY ADV. SMT.M.R.SREELATHA** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** **1. TALUK LAND BOARD, QUILANDY.** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **BY SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SUSHEELA R.BHATT** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-03-2016 ALONG WITH CRP.219/2010 & CRP.238/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.** ------------------------------------------------ ## **C.R.P.Nos.217, 219 & 238 of 2010** ---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 15[th] day of March, 2016 ## **ORDER** ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN, J** A common question arises in these three revision petitions. They were therefore heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The Taluk Land Board, Quilandy initiated suo motu proceedings under section 85(7) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), against three persons namely, Sri.Mekkunnath Haridas, Mekkunnath Jayaraj and Mekkunnath Leeladharan for the reason that they had failed to file a statement of the lands held by them as required under section 85(A) of the Act. Initially, by orders passed on 27.09.1979 in the case of Sri.Mekkunnath Leeladharan, on 31.03.1980 in the case of Sri.Mekkunnath Jayaraj and on 04.11.1980 in the case of Sri.Mekkunnath Haridas, the Taluk Land Board dropped the proceedings initiated by it after entering a finding that the lands involved in the ceiling cases were rubber plantations prior to 01.04.1964. _**C.R.P.Nos.217, 219 & 238 of 2010**_ 2 3. Later, the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Land Reforms, Quilandy) sent a letter dated 28.04.1990 to the effect that the exemption granted to the assessees on the ground that the lands involved were rubber plantations prior to 01.04.1964 is erroneous and that the registration certificates issued by the Rubber Board would show that the lands were planted after 1964. The Taluk Land Board thereupon passed an order dated 24.05.1990 re-opening the ceiling cases. Notices were thereafter issued to the assessees. They did not however, enter appearance and file objections. The Taluk Land Board thereupon passed revised orders on 22.06.1990 in the case of Sri.Mekkunnath Haridas and Sri.Mekkunnath Jayaraj and on 27.12.1990 in the case of Sri.Mekkunnath Leeladharan, setting aside its earlier orders. The Taluk Land Board also simultaneously directed notice to be issued to the assessees demanding surrender of different extents of lands, as lands held by them in excess of the ceiling area. 4. The assessees entered appearance and filed objections contending _inter alia_ that the land ordered to be surrendered are rubber plantations and hence exempted. They further contended that the re-opening of the cases is time barred. The Taluk Land Board overruled the contentions raised by the different assesses and passed _**C.R.P.Nos.217, 219 & 238 of 2010**_ 3 separate revised orders on 26.09.1991, directing them to surrender different extents of land situated in Atholy Village, Quilandy Taluk, Kozhikode District. The assessees thereupon filed C.R.P.Nos.2385 of 1991, 2382 of 1991, 2383 of 1991 and 2384 of 1991 in this court. The civil revision petitions were heard and disposed of by a common order passed on 30.07.1996. By that order, this court held that though the Taluk Land Board purported to Act under section 85(9A) of the Act, it followed the procedure prescribed under Section 85(9) thereof. This court accordingly set aside the impugned orders and directed the Taluk Land Board to pass fresh orders in accordance with the procedure contained in section 85(9A) of the Act. 5. The Taluk Land Board thereupon issued notice to the assessees. They entered appearance and produced photostat copies of documents to substantiate their contention, that the lands ordered to be surrendered were rubber plantations before 01.04.1964. The assessees had in the meanwhile transferred different parcels of land to the petitioners in these revision petitions. On coming to know of the proceedings initiated by the Taluk Land Board to review its earlier orders, the petitioners herein appeared and filed separate applications under section 85(8) of the Act contending that the lands transferred to _**C.R.P.Nos.217, 219 & 238 of 2010**_ 4 them are liable to be excluded from the account of the assessees. They placed reliance on section 7E of the Act in support of their contention. The Taluk Land Board considered the objections put forward by the petitioners as well as the assessees, overruled their objections and directed surrender of different parcels of lands. The said orders are under challenge in these civil revision petitions filed under section 103 of the Act. 6. When these revision petitions came up for consideration before one of us (P.N.Ravindran, J) on 19.11.2013, having regard to the conflict of the opinion as regards the question whether the Taluk Land Board can consider the question whether the claimant before it is a person entitled to the benefit of section 7E of the Act, or whether the person who claims to be a deemed tenant under section 7E of the Act should move the Land Tribunal for a certificate of purchase and cannot put forward a claim under section 7E of the Act before the Taluk Land Board, without getting a certificate of purchase, to be examined by a Division Bench of this court. These revision petitions have thus, come up before us, for hearing today. 7. After the reference orders were passed, a Division Bench of this court considered the very same issue in _**State of Kerala v.**_ _**C.R.P.Nos.217, 219 & 238 of 2010**_ 5 _**Father Xavier, Karivallil and Others**_ (2015(3) KLT 573). After considering the reference order passed in the instant cases and after examining the relevant statutory provisions, the Division Bench of this court held that in a ceiling case or in an application filed under section 85(8) of the Act, it is always open to the Taluk Land Board to consider whether the land is liable to be exempted on the basis of the claim made by a deemed tenant or declarant under section 7E of the Act. It was held that for that purpose, there is no requirement that a certificate of purchase as contemplated under section 106(B) of the Act should have been obtained. The Division Bench also held that, if a deemed tenant requires a certificate of purchase, his remedy is to approach the Land Tribunal. The Division Bench also held that a deemed tenant entitled to the benefit of section 7E of the Act, is entitled to get the protection envisaged under section 13(11) of the Act. 8. A reading of the impugned order discloses that, the Taluk Land Board has not examined the contentions raised by the petitioners in these revision petitions, that they are deemed tenants entitled to the protection of section 7E of the Act, on the merits. The Taluk Land Board has proceeded on the basis that as the transfers were made to _**C.R.P.Nos.217, 219 & 238 of 2010**_ 6 defeat the provisions of the Act, the petitioners will not get the benefit of section 7E of the Act. In the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this court in _**State of Kerala v. Father Xavier, Karivallil and Others**_ (supra), the stand taken by the Taluk Land Board in the separate orders impugned in these cases cannot be sustained. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the Taluk Land Board should re-examine the claims put forward by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereon in the light of the law laid down by this court in _**State of Kerala v. Father Xavier, Karivallil and Others**_ (supra) and having regard to the pleadings and the materials on record. We accordingly allow these revision petitions, set aside the impugned orders and remand the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 85(8) to the Act, wherein they have claimed protection under section 7E of the Act, to the Taluk Land Board, Quilandy for fresh consideration. The Taluk Land Board shall also consider the question whether the lands involved in the three cases were rubber plantations as on 01.04.1964. It will be open to the petitioners and assessees to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. Having regard to the fact that the _suo motu_ proceedings 7 ## _**C.R.P.Nos.217, 219 & 238 of 2010**_ were reopened in the year 1990, we deem it appropriate to direct the The Taluk Land Board to pass revised orders in the matter expeditiously in any event within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, after issuing notice to the petitioners and the assessees. No costs. _Sd/-_ ## **( P.N. Ravindran, Judge)** _Sd/-_ ## **(K. Ramakrishnan, Judge)** //True Copy// P.A. to Judge ss ## _**C.R.P.Nos.217, 219 & 238 of 2010**_ 8