Raghavan C.V. and Others v. Taluk Land Board, Mananthavady and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 6TH SRAVANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 12241 OF 2010** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 RAGHAVAN C.V, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, 'RAJASREE',MANGATTIDOM P.O, KOOTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2 RAJEEV.R, S/O.RAGHAVAN 'RAJASREE',MANGATTIDOM P.O, KOOTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT 3 RAJEETH.R, S/O.RAGHAVAN 'RAJASREE',MANGATTIDOM P.O, KOOTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT 4 RAJEESH.R, S/O.RAGHAVAN 'RAJASREE', MANGATTIDOM P.O, KOOTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE TALUK LAND BOARD, MANANTHAVADY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2 THE TAHSILDAR, MANANTHAVADY TALUK WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3 THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV.SMT.SHEEJA.C.S., GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 12241/2010 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **------------------------------W.P.(C)No.12241 of 2010 -------------------------------Dated this the 28[th ] day of July 2021** ## **JUDGMENT** **The above Writ petition is filed with following prayers:** _“i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1[st] respondent to reconsider the claim petition_ _**Exhibit-P10** filed by the petitioners after notice to the petitioners on merits on the basis of section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 2005._ _ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing_ _**Exhibit P-13** . iii) Issue such other writ, order or direction, as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”_ ## **2. The short facts are like this:** **According to the petitioners, they are** **absolute owners of 5.37 ½ acres of land as per Exts.P1 to P4 documents. Exts.P5 to P8 are the** WP(C) NO. 12241/2010 3 **tax receipts showing that they paid tax for the land covered by Exts.P1 to P4 documents. Subsequently, the petitioners came to know about Ext.P9 proceedings in which the petitioners property is treated as excess land. Therefore, the petitioners submitted Exts.P10 and P11 before the 1[st] respondent. The claim of the petitioners is based on Section 7E and 85 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 2005. Ext.P13 is the order passed by the Taluk Land Board. The order is extracted hereunder:** _**“**_ എന.വവ.മമ ാ ധവനന ്റെ പപ േ രവല ു ള ്ള മവച ്ച ഭ ൂ മവ മമ ാ നന ്ത വമ ാ ടവ തമ ാ ല ൂ കക ്ക് ലമ ാ ന ്റെ്ക് ക പബമരഡവല വവചമരണ ഘടതവലവരവനകയമണക നവങള ഈ ാ ്‍ ്‍ ാ ്ട ാ ്ക് ്ങ ്‍ ക പക േ സവല ു ള ്‍ നപ ്പെ ട ്ട ഭ ൂ മവ വമ ാ ങ ്ങ വയവട ്ടു ള ്ള തക ്ക് . തമ ാ ല ൂ കക ്ക് ലമ ാ ന ്റെ്ക് പബമ ാ ര ്‍ ഡവനന ്റെ 30.05.2000 നല ഉതരവക ്ക് ബഹ. ഹഹ ൈ പകമ ാ ടതവയയ ും സ ു പപയ ും പക േ മ ാ ടതവയയ ും അയ ും ഗപക േ രവച ്ച വട ്ടു ണക ്ക് . ബഹ. സ ു പപയ ും പക േ മ ാ ടതവ വവധവ അന ു സരവച ്ച മ ാ ണക ്ക് മമ ാ നന ്ത വമ ാ ടവ തഹ ൈ സവല ്‍ ദമ ാ ര ്‍ തവവഞമ ാ ല ്‍ വവപല ്ലേ ജവനല റപസര ്‍ നവ ്വെ 340/1 നല 4.91 ഏകര ്‍ ഭ ൂ മവ ഏനറ ്റെ ട ു പകണതമ ാ യവട ്ടു ള ്ള തക ്ക് . ആയതവനമ ാ ല ്‍ നവങ ്ങ ള ു നട അപപ േ ക ്ഷ പ േ രവഗണവനമ ാ ര ്‍ ഹ ൈ മനല ്ലേ ന ്ന റവയവക ്കു ന. _**”**_ **Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition** **is filed.** **3. Heard the learned counsel for the** WP(C) NO. 12241/2010 4 **petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.** **4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Ext.P13 is not a speaking order. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is entitled the benefit under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 2005. All the conditions in Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act are available to the petitioners. In such circumstances, simply because some judgments are there from the Supreme Court, the Land Board can not reject Exts.P10 and P11. The learned counsel also relied on the judgments of this Court in** _**Abhilash T.M. v. State of Kerala and Another [2018 (5) KHC 625]**_ **and** _**Rajeev K.T. v. District Collector, Wayanad and Others[2014(4)KHC 102]**_ **. The learned counsel submitted that the Land Board is bound to consider the evidence and documents and it is a quasi judicial body and therefore a speaking order is to be passed. The contentions of the petitioners are not** WP(C) NO. 12241/2010 5 **considered by the Land Board. This is the sum and substance of the argument of the petitioner.** **5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that there is nothing to interfere in Ext.P13. The reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioners is clear from Ext.P13 order. The learned Government Pleader submitted that, in such circumstances this Court may not interfere with Ext.P13 order. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P9 order is upheld by this Court in CRP No.1865/2000 dated 14.06.2006 and SLP No.21222/2006 filed against it before the apex court is dismissed on 19.08.2008.** **6. Admittedly the petitioners are not parties in Ext.P9 proceedings. The petitioners filed Exts.P10 and P11 to get the benefit under Section 7E and Section 85 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Ext.P13 is the order passed by the Land Board. I think this is not an order** WP(C) NO. 12241/2010 6 **in accordance to law. While passing orders, the Land Board is bound to consider the contentions of the petitioners on merit and should pass a speaking order. I am not satisfied with Ext.P13 order. According to me, Ext.P13 order can be set aside and all the contentions of the petitioners can be left open and the 1[st] respondent can be directed to reconsider the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and allowing them to produce documents, if any to substantiate their case.** **Therefore this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:** **(i) Ext.P13 order is set aside.** **(ii) The 1[st] respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P10 in accordance to law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and also allowing the petitioners to adduce further evidences, if any.** **(iii) The 1[st] respondent will dispose the** WP(C) NO. 12241/2010 7 **matter as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within ten months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.** **(iv) The interim order not to dispossess the petitioner will continue till the disposal of the proceedings by the 1[st] respondent.** **(v) All questions raised by the petitioners in this writ petition are left open.** Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** **DM** WP(C) NO. 12241/2010 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12241/2010** PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS - EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER WHICH WAS REGISTERED ON 8- 6-1993 AT MANANTHAVADY S.R.O. AS DOCUMENT NO.1439/1993. - EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER WHICH WAS REGISTERED ON 9- 6-1993 AT MANANTHAVADY S.R.O. AS DOCUMENT NO.1462/1993. - EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE 3RD PETITIONER WHICH WAS REGISTERED ON 9- 6-1993 AT MANANTHAVADY S.R.O. AS DOCUMENT NO.1463/1993. - EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER WHICH WAS REGISTERED ON 8-6-1993 AT MANANTHAVADY S.R.O. AS DOCUMENT NO.1440/1993. - EXHIBIT P5 THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 29-1-2009, FOR THE YEAR 2008-09. - EXHIBIT P6 THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 29-1-2009, FOR THE YEAR 2008-09. - EXHIBIT P7 THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 29-1-2009, FOR THE YEAR 2008-09. - EXHIBIT P8 THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 29-1-2009, FOR THE YEAR 2008-09. WP(C) NO. 12241/2010 9 EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATAED 30-5-2000. EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER S.85(8) OF THE KLR ACT BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22-12-2009. EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 22-12-2009. EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 5-1-2010 PASSED IN W.P.(C) NO.37757 OF 2009. EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 5-1-2010, NO.G.TLB.171/73/MTDY. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE