High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-11-14Remand to the Taluk Land Board for a reappraisa...

K. Kamalam v. Taluk Land Board, Palakkad and Others

Case / Petition Number:CRP.No.203/2010 (C)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V. Chitambaresh
Judgment Date: 2014-11-14
Court Decision / Holding: This order remands CRP Nos. 203/2010, 215/2010, and 262/2010 to the Taluk Land Board for a fresh consideration of exemptions under Section 81 (including 81(1)(e), (c), (m)), taking into account Rubber Board inputs, forest vesting, and Section 7E. The Board is directed to call for any further reports and to ensure the petitioners are put on notice before final orders. The court directs that final orders be passed within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; the petitioners’ cases are disposed by remand rather than final adjudication on the exemptions at this stage.
Final Disposition: Remand to the Taluk Land Board for a reappraisal of exemptions under the Kerala Land Reforms Act (Section 81 and sub-sections), with Rubber Board inputs and forest vesting considerations; examine Section 7E; notify parties; final orders to be issued within six months of receiving this order; disposed of CRP Nos. 203/2010, 215/2010 and 262/2010 by remand for fresh determination.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K. Kamalam
B. Rema
B. Kasthuri
B. Achuthan
B. Indira
B. Aruna
S. Achuthan
S. Devadas
P. Achuthan
P. Ravindran
P. Padmanabhan
Ambujakshy
Mohanan
Seetha
Sankari

Respondents

The Taluk Land Board, Palakkad represented by its Chairman
The Tahsildar, Palakkad
The State of Kerala represented by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
B. Kamalam
B. Kaushalya
Bhamini

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• D. Krishna Prasad
• O. K. Santha
• P. L. Mary Treasa

Counsels for Respondents

• Susheela R. Bhat (Special Government Pleader)
• Mathew John (Advocate)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Civil Revision Petition arises from challenges to an order of the Taluk Land Board in ceiling proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, concerning a partition of ancestral land among four brothers—Achutha Bhaskar, Sivagiri, Parasuraman and Balakrishnan—followed by the sharing of Schedule B and C lands and a common Schedule C. Balakrishnan’s ceiling liabilities were found to be zero, while the other three faced compulsory surrender for excess lands. The petitioners attack the treatment of exemptions under Section 81 of the Act, contending that portions of the land—urban land (2.83 acres) with shop buildings; a farm house, rice mill, yard, wells and tanks (3.33 acres); and other segments including rubber plantation vested forest, and certain lands sold by heirs—should be exempt under Section 81(1)(e), (c) and (m). They also seek the benefit of Section 7E (deemed tenants) and rely on documents and reports, including Rubber Board registrations and a Special Deputy Tahsildar report. The respondents argue exemptions must be determined on evidence and statutory controls, and warn of the need for careful review of forest vesting and the impact of Section 87 conversions. The High Court remands the petitions for a fresh, comprehensive reconsideration by the Taluk Land Board, calls for Rubber Board inputs, and directs final orders within six months with notice to the parties.”

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - Section 81Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - Section 81(1)(e)Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - Section 81(1)(c)Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - Section 81(1)(m)Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - Section 7EKerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - Section 87Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - Section 106BKerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Not a sine qua non (for grant of Section 7E benefits without a title certificate)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that exemptions under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act should cover lands described as urban land (2.83 acres) with shop buildings and a rice mill, and the farm house, yard, wells and tanks (3.33 acres), in addition to lands or interests in rubber plantations. They argue that rubber plantations, vested forest lands and lands sold by heirs fall within exempted categories under Section 81(1)(e), (c) and (m). They press for the benefit of Section 7E (deemed tenancy) and rely on documents and Rubber Board records, asserting that the remand and earlier orders must be applied to determine the extent of exemptions and the entitlement of the appellants. They also challenge the treatment of forest vesting and seek inclusion of these factors in the reconsideration. They urge that the Rubber Board input and the report of the Special Deputy Tahsildar be used to ascertain the exact extent of exempt lands and the implications of vesting, and that final orders should reflect the correct exemptions and 7E considerations.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that exemptions under Section 81 must be determined strictly on documentary evidence and statutory provisions. They emphasize the need to assess the veto on exemptions, including the impact of vesting in respect of rubber plantations and forest lands, and the necessity to verify the precise extent in the possession of others, along with forest vesting effects. They argue that the deemed tenancy under Section 7E requires careful examination and may not be automatically granted without proper inputs, including whether a title certificate under Section 106B is essential. They contend that remand should be used for a thorough re-evaluation with input from the Rubber Board and other sources and that the final orders must be grounded in accurate findings of exemptions, possession, and statutory prerequisites.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajeev v. District Collector	2014 (4) KLT 209	Positive	The court cites this decision to support that a certificate of title under Section 106B is not a sine qua non for considering a claim under Section 7E.
State of Kerala v. Thomas Kurian	2014 (4) KLT 417	Positive	The decision is cited for the principle that Section 7E entitlement does not mandatorily require a title certificate, guiding the remand directions.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against K. Kamalam v. Taluk Land Board, Palakkad and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/23RD KARTHIKA, 1936 CRP.No. 203 of 2010 (C) ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25-02-2010 IN LB 795/1973, SM 5/87 & SM 6/87 of TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD REVISION PETITIONERS:- --------------------------- 1. K.KAMALAM, - W/O. LATE ACHUTHA BHASKER, ARAPPATH KALLINGAL HOUSE, GOLDEN STREET, KARNAKI NAGAR, PALAKKAD -12. 2. B. REMA, D/O. LATE ACHUTHA BHASKER AND W/O. CHANDRAN ARAPPATH KALLINGAL HOUSE, GOLDEN STREET, KARNAKI NAGAR, PALAKKAD -12. 3. B. KASTHURI, D/O. LATE ACHUTHA BHASKER AND W/O.RAMACHANDRAN 43/282, SREEVALSOM, AREKKARA STREET, PALAKKAD. 4. B. ACHUTHAN, S/O. LATE ACHUTHA BHASKAR, ARAPPATH KALLINGAL HOUSE, GOLDEN STREET, KARNAKI NAGAR, PALAKKAD -12. 5. B. INDIRA, D/O. LATE ACHUTHA BHASKAR AND W/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, ACHARATH HOUSE, KADAMPAZHIPURAM, PALAKKAD. 6. B. ARUNA, D/O. LATE ACHUTHA BHASKAR AND W/O.T. CHANDRAN, THAZHATHAKALAM, THANKARA.P.O, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 7. S. ACHUTHAN, S/O. LATE A. SIVAGIRI, ARAPPATH KALLINGAL HOUSE, GOLDEN STREET, KARNAKI NAGAR PALAKKAD -12. 8. S. DEVADAS, S/O. LATE A. SIVAGIRI, ARAPPATH KALLINGAL HOUSE, GOLDEN STREET, KARNAKI NAGAR PALAKKAD -12. CRP.No.203/2010 : 2 : ## 9. P. ACHUTHAN, - S/O. LATE PARASURAMAN, ARAPPATH KALLINGAL HOUSE, GOLDEN STREET, KARNAKI NAGAR, PALAKKAD -12. ## 10. P. RAVINDRAN, S/O. LATE PARASURAMAN, ARAPPATH KALLINGAL HOUSE, GOLDEN STREET, KARNAKI NAGAR, PALAKKAD -12. 11. P. PADMANABHAN, - S/O. LATE PARASURAMAN, ARAPPATH KALLINGAL HOUSE, GOLDEN STREET, KARNAKI NAGAR, PALAKKAD -12. 12. AMBUJAKSHY, W/O. LATE PARASURAMAN, SAKTHI NAGAR, MELAMURI, PALAKKAD - 14. 13. MOHANAN, - S/O. LATE PARASURAMAN, SAKTHI NAGAR, MELAMURI, PALAKKAD - 14. 14. SEETHA, D/O. LATE PARASURAMAN AND W/O. BHASKARAN, BHARGAVINILAYAM, DEVI NAGAR MOOTHANTHARA, PALAKKAD. 15. SANKARI, - D/O. LATE PARASURAMAN AND, W/O. M.S. ASHOKUMAR DAYANANDA STREET, KARNAKI NAGAR, PALAKKAD-12. BY ADVS.SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SMT.O.K.SANTHA SMT.P.L.MARY TREASA RESPONDENTS: - ------------------ 1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. CRP.No.203/2010 : 3 : 4. B. KAMALAM, - D/O. LATE ACHUTHA BHASKAR AND - W/O. K. RAJENDRAN, 49/281, JAINMEDU, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD. 5. B. KAUSALYA, - D/O. LATE ACHUTHA BHASKAR AND W/O. P.S. SRINIVASAN, YESODHA, KONGAD, PALAKKAD. 6. BHAMINI, - D/O. LATE PARASURAMAN AND W/O.P.P. BALAKRISHNAN, PUTHEN VEEDU, KODUVAYOOR, PALAKKAD. R,R1-R3 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUSHEELA R. BHAT R STRANGER BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-11-2014, ALONG WITH CRP. 215/2010 & CRP. 262/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN CRP.No.203/2010 ## IA.No.39/2013 in CRP.No.203/2010: Document No.1 Application for registration of estate dated 17.7.1963 submitted before the Rubber Board Document No.2 Communication issued by the Rubber Board dated 5.2.1970. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. V.CHITAMBARESH, J. --------------------C.R.P.Nos.203, 215, 262 of 2010 --------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of November, 2014 ## O R D E R Four brothers by name, i) Achutha Bhaskar, ii) Sivagiri iii) Parasuraman and iv) Balakrishnan divided their ancestral property amongst themselves. The partition is evidenced by a Deed (Document No.806/1968, SRO, Palakkad) dated 12.1.1968. The property scheduled as 'A' thereunder was allotted to Balakrishnan and property scheduled as 'B' thereunder was set apart jointly to the share of the remaining three brothers. It should be stated that the property scheduled as 'C' thereunder was kept in common over which all the four brothers had one-fourth share each. Ceiling proceedings initiated against Balakrishnan has become final holding that he has no excess lands to surrender. The proceedings initiated against the other 3 brothers were the subject matter of CRP.No.307/2007 on the file of this Court. 2. This Court by order dated 20.2.2008 remanded the ceiling cases to the Taluk Land Board with the following directions:- CRP.Nos.203, 215 & 262 of 2010 2 - i) The total extent of property in schedule 'B' partition deed dated 12.1.1968 should be divided into 3 for reckoning the same in the account of each one of the brothers. - ii) The property scheduled as 'C' in the registered Deed dated 12.1.1968 should be divided into 4 for including the same in the account of each one of the brothers. - iii) The total extent of property so reckoned in schedules 'B' and 'C' of the Deed dated 12.1.1968 should be accounted from which exemption under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act should be carved out. - iv) The extent so arrived at should be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the liability of each one of the brothers to surrender excess lands. Each one of the brothers had a statutory family comprising of wife and children and the total ceiling limit applicable to the families of 3 brothers has been found to be 50 acres by the Taluk Land Board. CRP.Nos.203, 215 & 262 of 2010 3 3. The petitioners contend that the exemption under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 ('the Act' for short) has not been considered in the proper perspective. They assert that 2.83 acres is urban land consisting of shop, buildings, rice mill etc. and 3.33 acres comprises of farm house, rice mill, yard, buildings, wells and tanks. It is also stated that 1.28.90 acres has been sold by the legal heirs of Parasuraman to the petitioner in CRP.No.262/2010. The sale is by Document Nos.1875/1997, 1876/1997, 1877/1997, 1879/1997 (all dated 17.10.1997) and 1768/1999 dated 16.10.1999. The petitioners point out that 239.11 acres included in the account is vested forest in respect of which proceedings under the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act have become final. The petitioners add that 15.39 acres are in the possession of others and 44.97 acres is a rubber plantation liable to be exempted. 4. Heavy reliance is placed on the report of the Special Deputy Tahsildar dated 15.3.2000 to show the extent of property vested as private forest and CRP.Nos.203, 215 & 262 of 2010 4 also the extent of property in the possession of others. The application put in by the petitioners before the Rubber Board as well as their acknowledgment are relied on to contend that the rubber plantation extends to 45 acres. The documents though said to have been produced before the Taluk Land Board are produced along with the memorandum of Civil Revision Petitions also. The petitioners assert that about 45 acres of land was planted with rubber even before 1.4.1964 and are liable to be exempted. 5. The petitioners in CRP.No.215/2010 is said to be assignees of the rubber plantation from the declarant by a series of of sale deeds. The sale is evidenced by Document Nos.2147/86, 2153/86, 2149/86, 2151/86, 2146/86, 2152/86, 2154/86, 2150/86, 2142/86, 2144/86, 2155/86, 2148/86, 2156/86, 2145/6 and 2143/86. The contention of the assignees are two fold and they are as under:- i) The land taken assignment of is a rubber plantation liable to be exempted under Section 81(1)(e) of the Act. CRP.Nos.203, 215 & 262 of 2010 5 ii) The assignees are at any rate entitled to the benefit of Section 7E of the Act introduced with effect from 18.10.2006 and are to be treated as 'deemed tenants'. It is pointed out that the claim under Section 7E of the Act was earlier upheld by the order of the Taluk Land Board dated 25.1.2007. But then the said order was set aside in CRP.No.307/2007 without they being impleaded where ofcourse an open remand was made to the Taluk Land Board. The Special Government Pleader has a contention that the rubber plantation has been converted in violation of Section 87 of the Act and that it has lost its exemption. That is an issue matter to be considered by the Taluk Land Board after obtaining the necessary inputs from the Rubber Board. 6. I do feel that all the aspects of the matter have not been considered by the Taluk Land Board especially in the light of the order of remand in CRP.No.307/2011. The question of exemption under Section 81(1)(e) of the Act has to be reconsidered with reference to the documents available particularly in CRP.Nos.203, 215 & 262 of 2010 6 regard to registration by the Rubber Board. The report of the Special Deputy Tahsildar has also to be adverted to for deciphering the extent of land in the possession of others and that lost as a vested forest. The question whether exemption is to be granted under Section 81(1)(c) and (m) of the Act as shop buildings, rice mill, farm house, well and tanks has also to be considered with reference to the report of the Special Deputy Tahsildar. The Taluk Land Board is free to call for further report from the Special Deputy Tahsildar in order to confirm the contents of the earlier report. 7. The applicability of Section 7E of the act shall also be considered in the light of the dictum laid down in Rajeev v. District Collector [2014 (4) KLT 209] and State of Kerala v. Thomas Kurian [2014 (4) KLT 417]. It has been held thereunder that the grant of a certificate of title under Section 106 B of the Act is not a sine qua non for the Taluk Land Board to consider the claim under Section 7E of the Act. The petitioners in these Civil Revision Petitions as well as the legal heirs of the declarant shall be put on CRP.Nos.203, 215 & 262 of 2010 7 notice before final orders are passed. Every endeavour shall be made to pass final orders within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This order disposes of CRP.No.203/2010 filed by the legal heirs of the declarant and CRP.Nos.215/2010 and 262/2010 filed by the claimants. Sd/V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge. nj.