## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
**PRESENT:**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL**
**TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2014/31ST ASHADHA, 1936**
## **CRP.No. 504 of 2010 ( )**
**-----------------------SMP.NO.65/1977 OF TALUK LAND BOARD, PERINTHALMANNA**
**------------------**
## **REVISION PETITIONER :**
**---------------------------------------**
**K.V.IBRAHIM, S/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY, KODUVAIKKAL HOUSE, VALAMPUR P.O., VIA.PATTIKKAD, PERINTHALMANNA.**
**BY ADVS.SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.VANDANA MENON SMT.ANJU P.NAIR**
## **RESPONDENT(S):**
**----------------------------**
**1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PERINTHALMANNA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-679 322**
**2. TAHSILDAR, PERINTHALMANNA-679 322**
**3. STATE OF KERALA-REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,**
**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001**
**4. K.V.UMMER, S/O.SAIDALI HAJI, KODUVAIKKAL HOUSE, KEEZHATTUR VILLAGE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK.PIN-679 322**
**R1 TO R3 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUSHEELA R. BHAT R4 BY ADVS. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO**
**SMT.N.SHOBHA SRI.K.S.BALAKRISHNAN SRI.P.M.POULOSE**
**THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-07-2014, ALONG WITH CRP.NO. 632/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
**sts**
## **K.HARILAL, J.**
= = = = = = = = = = = **C.R.P.Nos.504 & 632 of 2010**
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22[nd] day of July, 2014
## **C O M M O N O R D E R**
The petitioner in CRP No.504/2010 is one of the legal heirs of the deceased assessee in SMP No.65/1977 on the files of the Taluk Land Board, Perinthalmanna. The petitioner in CRP No.632/2010 is the owner in possession and enjoyment of 5.65 acres of land in S.No.65/1A1 of Keezhattur Village, Perinthalmanna Taluk as per document No.1733/84 of SRO, Perinthalmanna. He is a claimant under Sec. 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act'). According to him, he purchased the above property from one Subaida who in turn got the property by virtue of sale deed No.32/75 of SRO, Perinthalmanna from the deceased declarant who is none other than the father of Subaida. The Taluk Land Board included the said land in the ceiling case for the reason that purchase of property by the petitioner is invalid under the Act. The petitioner
C.R.P.Nos.504 & 632 of 2010
2
approached this Court on two earlier occasions by filing CRP Nos.940/1989 and 1359/2004. In the last C.R.P No.1359/2004, this Court while remanding the case to the Taluk Land Board, directed the Taluk Land Board, to consider the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the decision in **Sunny v. TLB** (1981 KLT SN 153) and also on the basis of Sec.7(E) of the Act (Act 21 of 2006). The TLB after the remand, reconsidered the matter in issue, in view of the direction of this Court in the above C.R.P and rejected the claim on the ground that the transfer of property effected in favour of the petitioner was intended to defeat the ceiling provisions of the Act. This order is under challenge in this revision petition.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the TLB has not reconsidered the claim under 7(E) of the Act in its correct perspective. The TLB has not considered the report filed by the authorised officer, in which, it is specifically stated that Smt.Subaida from whom the petitioner purchased the property was not a
## C.R.P.Nos.504 & 632 of 2010 3
member of the family of the declarant on 01/01/1970. According to the report of the authorised officer, on 01/01/1970, she was a major and she purchased the said property by virtue of sale deed No.32/1975 from the declarant after effecting payment of consideration. Thus, being an absolute sale deed executed on consideration in favour of the daughter of the declarant, she is entitled to get benefit under Sec. 7(E) of the Act. Similarly, the property has not been distributed among the landless labourers. Therefore, the claim is not hit by the first proviso. Though, the TLB found that the said sale was effected to defeat the ceiling provisions, no materials have been relied on or placed for arriving at such a finding. In short, the TLB has not applied its mind in view of the legislative intend under Sec.7(E) of the Act (Act 21 of 2006).
3. Per contra, the learned Special Govt. Pleader advanced arguments to justify the findings of the TLB. According to the Special Govt. Pleader, the said Subaida is the daughter of the declarant. So, it can be reasonably
C.R.P.Nos.504 & 632 of 2010 4
presumed that the sale was intended to defeat the Ceiling Provisions of the Act. In short, the TLB can be justified in finding that the petitioners' claim under Sec.7E is hit by II proviso to Sec.84(4) of the Act.
4. In view of the rival submissions, the question that arises for consideration is, whether the Taluk Land Board can be justified in rejecting the petitioners' claim under Sec.7E of the Act, on a finding that the transfer in favour of the petitioner was intended to defeat the ceiling provisions of the Act?
5. Going by the impugned order, it is seen that, the eligibility of the 4[th] respondent to get the benefit of Sec.7E of the Act was directed to be considered by the TLB, by this Court as per the direction in CRP No.1359/2004. Based on that direction, a report was called for from the Special Deputy Tahsildar (RR), Perinthalmanna. He has submitted a report narrating the devolution of right on K.V.Ummer and ultimately he recommended that the transfer in favour of K.V.Ummer is liable to be protected as provided under
C.R.P.Nos.504 & 632 of 2010 5
Sec.7E of the Act. If that be so, how did the TLB arrive on a finding that, the transfer in favour of K.V.Ummer was effected for defeating the ceiling provision? Obviously, the said finding is not supported by any material or evidence. On the other hand, the said finding goes against the report filed by the Authorised Officer in exercise of power under Sec.105A of the Act. A finding without reasoning is liable to be rejected at the threshold and I do so.
6. Moreover to the devolution of right over Sri.Ummer, it is to be noticed that, the first transfer in favour of Smt.Subaida was effected when Ceiling Case was not initiated against the assessee and Subaida was major as
on 01-01-1970. Put it differently, at the time of transfer, Subaida was not a statutory member of the assessee's family. Going by the report filed by the Authorised Officer, it could be seen that, the Authorised Officer has specifically reported that the sale deed No.32/1975 was effected in favour of Smt.Subaida on valid consideration. In the absence of any material, contrary to the said finding of the
C.R.P.Nos.504 & 632 of 2010 6
Authorised Officer, the TLB cannot be justified in finding that the sale was intended to defeat ceiling provision.
7. Coming to the question, whether the claim under Sec.7E is hit by any of the proviso under Sec.84(4) of the Act, the Authorised Officer reported that the said property has not been distributed to landless labourers so far. Thus, the claim is not hit by the 1[st] proviso. Coming to II proviso, in the light of the discussions made above, I have already rejected the finding that the sale in favour of Smt.Subaida, respondents were intended to defeat the ceiling provision.
8. Coming to 3[rd] proviso, the TLB has no case that the land has already been surrendered or assumed from the assessee as excess land. Indisputably, this case has a chequered carrier of more than 37 years and the legal representatives of the original assessee has been fighting on various reasons, without surrendering their claim. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner under the 4[th] respondent is not hit by any of the proviso's under Sec.84(4) of the Act.
C.R.P.Nos.504 & 632 of 2010
**==> picture [7 x 10] intentionally omitted <==**
9. In the light of the above discussion, I find that the petitioner in CRP No.632/2010 as well as the 4[th] respondent in CRP No.504/2010 is entitled to get protection under Sec.7E of the Act with respect to 5.65 Acres of land, which is in his possession and enjoyment. Needless to say, the petitioner in CRP No.504/2010 is entitled to get corresponding deduction in the account of the assessee.
In the result, CRP No.632/2010 is allowed and CRP No.504/2010 is allowed in part.
**K.HARILAL, JUDGE.**
Stu
//True copy//
P.A to Judge
