Director, Vadakkekalam Plantations Ltd. v. State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 2227 of 2000(E) ----------------------TLBSR.980/TPY of TALUK LAND BOARD, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------- DIRECTOR, VADAKKEKALAM PLANTATIONS LTD., BEACH ROAD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.E.R.VENKATESWARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHAIRMAN, TALUK LAND BOARD CHAVAKKAD & REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. BY SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP No. 2227 of 2000 ORDER ON CMP No. 4494 OF 2000 IN CRP No. 2227 OF 2000 DISMISSED. 17.01.2008 SD/- K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN,J.** ## **---------------------------------------** ## **C.R.P. NO. 2227 of 2000** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 12[th] day of December, 2012 ## **O R D E R** The above Civil Revision Petition is filed by a Public Limited Company, against the order of the Taluk Land Board in TLB SR 980/Tpy dated 18.08.2000. To say that, the case had a chequered history is an under statement. On going through the records, what is revealed is a conscious deliberate attempt to avert surrender of lands. Initially, the Taluk Land Board by order dated 18.03.1976, passed an order directing surrender of 141.51 acres. The petitioner challenged the same in revision before this Court and the matter was remanded in C.R.P No. 2572/1976. On remand, the Taluk Land Board found that, the lands held by the petitioner were cashew plantation as on 01.04.1964 and that the same was converted into rubber plantations between 01.04.1964 and 01.01.1970. Hence, the Taluk Land Board exempted the entire lands by order dated 19.05.1978 relying on the decision of this Court in _**Vellappally Plantations Private Limited v. State of Kerala**_ **(1977 KLT 265)** . The said decision was over C.R.P. NO. 2227 of 2000 2 ruled by this Court in _**Kuruvilla v. Taluk Land Board & Others**_ **(1980 KLT 53).** Hence, notice dated 11.03.1981 was issued by the Taluk Land Board under Section 85(9) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), proposing re-opening. 2. The petitioner challenged the validity of the notice under Sec.85(9) before the State Land Tribunal, which intially granted stay of the proceedings. The stay was subsequently vacated and further notice was issued directing to show-cause as to why the earlier order should not be re-opened. After considering the objections of the petitioner, the matter was re-opened under Sec.85(9) by order dated 16.05.1981. The petitioner challenged the same in O.P No. 3759/1981 which was dismissed by judgment dated 09.10.1987. This Court considered all the contentions raised by the revision petitioner against the re-opening under Sec.85(9) and found that, the Taluk Land Board acted strictly in conformity with the provisions of law. Finding that C.R.P. NO. 2227 of 2000 3 no extraneous consideration influenced the Taluk Land Board, the re-opening was confirmed. There could be no challenge to the re-opening now, since, the judgment in the original petition has become final. 3. While the proceedings under clause (5) of Sec.85 was going on, the petitioner approached the State Land Board with an application to transfer the proceeding from the Taluk Land Board, Talappilly to the Taluk Land Board at Alleppy. The State Land Board by order dated 28.7.1988 rejected the said prayer for transfer. The prayer for transfer was made only on the premise that, the Head Office of the Company was located at Alleppy. The State Land Board found that, the lands involved being within the jurisdiction of the Taluk Land Board, Talappilly, the location of the Head Office is not relevant and hence no transfer is warranted. This order of the Taluk Land Board was challenged by the petitioner in O.P No.6646/1988. The petitioner obtained a stay on 18.08.1988 which was subsequently extended for C.R.P. NO. 2227 of 2000 4 various periods. On 20.02.1990 a learned Single Judge of this Court found that, the challenge made in the original petition is not sustainable since the order of the Land Board is revisable under Sec.103. Hence, the original petition was dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner filing a revision under Sec.103 of the K.L.R Act. It is not clear as to whether the revision petitioner filed a Civil Revision Petition taking advantage of the liberty reserved in the original petition. 4. The proceeding against the petitioner Company under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, was transferred to the newly constituted Taluk Land Board at Mukundapuram and then to the Board for Chavakkad and Kodungallur. The petitioner having not challenged the order of re-opening by way of revision, again, applied for transfer of the proceedings from the Taluk Land Board Chavakkad and Kodungallur to some other Taluk Land Board. The said request having been rejected by the State Land Board, the petitioner was again before this Court challenging the State C.R.P. NO. 2227 of 2000 5 Land Board's refusal to transfer the proceedings in O.P No. 3198/98. That original petition was dismissed and the Writ Appeal filed against the said order bearing number W.A.721/1998 was also dismissed. In the meanwhile, the Taluk Land Board passed order dated 24.5.1997, which is available in page 417 of the records (Vol.4) of the Taluk Land Board. This order directed the surrender of 73.73 acres. This concluded the proceedings initiated under subsection (5) of Sec.85 and was the final order directing surrender of the properties as detailed therein. There is no challenge from this order by a revision or otherwise. The impugned order in this revision is not the order dated 25.04.1997, but a later order issued on Petition No. 7/1997, filed in the Taluk Land Board itself. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that, the present impugned order does not comply with the directions issued in O.P.No.18483/1998. It was also contended that, the re-opening of the proceedings C.R.P. NO. 2227 of 2000 6 was by way of the influence exerted by the State Land Board on the Taluk Land Board. It is too late in the day to raise a contention on the basis of the alleged influence of the State Land Board since, the same was specifically considered and answered against the revision petitioner in the judgment in O.P No. 3759/1981 dated 09.10.1987. It is also pertinent that, the revision petitioner was time and again before this Court with writ petitions filed against orders passed in applications of transfer made by the petitioner before the State Land Board. The conduct of the petitioner is such that, proceedings permitted under the KLR Act were deliberately thwarted by filing writ petitions for one reason or other and stay of dispossession obtained therein. 6. As was noticed earlier, the order issued by the Taluk Land Board dated 24.5.1997 directing surrender of 73.73 acres was not challenged by way of a revision. The claim now raised before this Court is also that the directions issued in O.P No.18483/1998 has not been complied with. On C.R.P. NO. 2227 of 2000 7 going through the records, the judgment dated 25.09.1998 in O.P.No. 18483/1998 as also the memorandum of original petition along with the exhibits were seen available at page 309 to 345 of Vol.IV of the records. The petitioner without challenging the order on 24.05.1997 challenged Form no. 9, notice of demand for surrender in the above original petition. Form No.9 notice was exhibited as Ext.P1. The petitioner had also produced Ext.P2 and P3 which were applications to the Taluk Land Board. The original petition was disposed of by the following order. "The petitioner has filed Exts.P2 and P3 before the first respondent. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on these petitions within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till orders are passed on Exts.P2 and P3, Ext.P1 shall not be enforced." 7. Looking at the memorandum of writ petition filed in O.P No.18483/1998, Ext.P1 is the notice of demand for surrender issued under Rule 17 in Form No.9. The notice also specifically mentions the proceedings dated 24.5.1997 of the Land Board. Ext P2 is an application, made before the C.R.P. NO. 2227 of 2000 8 Chairman, Taluk Land Board, Chavakkad and Kodungallur to keep in abeyance notice in Form No.9 till Petition No. 7 of 1997 is heard and disposed of. In Ext.P2 it is admitted that, the Form No.9 notice was issued on the basis of the Taluk Land Board's order dated 24.5.1997 (in Ext.P2 it mistakenly noticed as 24.5.1998). It was contended that, there are several serious discrepancies in the proceedings; which have been highlighted in Petition No.7 of 1997. However, it is not disclosed as to under what provision Petition No.7 of 1997 was filed. In the memorandum of writ petition it is stated in ground No. A that, the petitioner has filed the Objection No.7 of 97 before the Taluk Land Board. Obviously, on final orders being passed, there was no scope for any further objection. Ext.P3 was again a request to intimate the hearing date. These were the two applications which were directed to be considered by judgment in O.P No. 18483/1998. 8. The Taluk Land Board having concluded its proceedings by order dated on 24.05.1997, there was no C.R.P. NO. 2227 of 2000 9 scope for any further proceeding before the Board. In any event, the Taluk Land Board took up the matter and posted it on various dates. The proceedings-sheet available in the records indicate that at times the counsel for the declarant and declarant appeared and on some occasions remained absent. The impugned order was passed only because the Taluk Land Board was directed to consider Exts.P2 and P3 in O.P.No.18483/1998. The Taluk Land Board in the impugned order extracted the order dated 24.05.1997. From the impugned order it is seen that, the Petition No. 7/1997 was taken up and that obviously was a review petition. The Taluk Land Board correctly found that, there is no scope for review of the orders passed by the Taluk Land Board. The review as provided under the Act and rules framed there under is confined to sub-sections (8), (9) & (9A) of Sec.85 of the Act and Rule 136(A) of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1970. This has been so held in _**Mylan v. Taluk Land Board,**_ **2008(2)KLT 814.** A Division Bench of C.R.P. NO. 2227 of 2000 10 this Court also held in _**State v. Khalid**_ **, 2000(1) KLT 152** that a declarant is not entitled to invoke the power of review vested in the TLB under Sec. 85(9A). A learned Single Judge following the above Division Bench held in _**Rajagiri Rubber & Produce Co.Ltd v. State**_ **, [2011 (3) KLT SN 18]** that the declarant or assesee cannot involve clauses (a) to ( c) of Sec 85(9); as evidently, he cannot be expected to complain that the land taken from him was less or that he had no title to the land surrendered by him or that though the Taluk Land Board held that he was not liable to such surrender any extent actually he was liable to surrender. The Taluk Land Board hence found that, there is no scope for a review and rejected the application of the petitioner. 9. The impugned order hence, is only with respect to the power of review to be exercised by the Taluk Land Board which has been answered correctly. The original order passed under Sec.85(8) is of the date 24.05.1997 against which there is absolutely no challenge. The learned counsel C.R.P. NO. 2227 of 2000 11 would urge before this Court that, there are many discrepancies noticed in the Taluk Land Board order itself which necessarily has to be looked into by the Taluk Land Board before taking over the properties. I am afraid that does not come up for consideration in the above revision since, as noticed above what has been decided by the Taluk Land Board in the impugned order is only Petition No. 7/1997 which obviously is a review petition. The original order of the Taluk Land Board stands as such and there is no scope for interference at this stage nor is it in challenge in the instant revision The above Civil Revision Petition hence, stands dismissed with no costs. **K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE** 12 C.R.P. NO. 2227 of 2000 lsn