The revision petitioner herein is a claim petitioner under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, in C.C.No.1906/73 on the files of the Taluk Land Board, Chittur. The above claim petition was filed pursuant to an order passed by this Court in W.P(C). No.17069/06 filed by the claim petitioner. The Taluk Land Board initiated ceiling proceedings against Sri. Kunchelan, who is none other than the maternal grand father of the claim petitioner under Section 85(2) of the KLR Act and by the order dtd. 28-12-2000, the Taluk Land Board passed an order to the effect that the said Kunchelan was liable to surrender 13.47¼ acres of land as excess land. The petitioner claimed that he is the owner in possession of 1/5th share of the said property as per Gift Deed No.1388/70 of S.R.O., Chittur and the property with respect to his share is liable to be excluded from the property directed to be surrendered as excess land. After considering his claim, the Taluk Land Board dismissed the petition. The legality and propriety of the findings in the said order are under challenge in this Revision Petition.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner advanced arguments challenging the findings by which his claim petition has been dismissed by the Land Board. Firstly, the learned counsel contended that he is not liable to be evicted from the property as he is entitled to get protection under the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, 2001. Secondly, he contended that the 1st respondent had already taken possession of an extent of 14.92½ acres against the order passed by the Taluk Land Board on 28- 12-2000 when 13.47¼th acres of land was directed to be surrendered. Thus, an extent of 1.45 acres of land, more than what was directed to be taken possession by the Taluk Land Board in its last order referred above, is taken possession by the 2nd respondent, which is arbitrary and unsustainable.
3. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader drew my attention to the Preamble and Section 3 (a) of the said Act of 2001 and contended that the benefit of stay from eviction is granted to small holders who hold or possess land by way of assignment or otherwise as purchaser for consideration only and in the instance case, the petitioner is a donee in whose favour a gift deed had been executed by the declarant, who is none other than the maternal grand father. It is also contended that according to section 84(1) of the KLR Act, any transfer calculated to defeat the provisions of the Land Reforms Act shall be invalid unless it gets exemption under Section 81 or 84 (1A). According to Section 84(1A), the exemption is given to daughter or son or the son or daughter of the predeceased son or daughter only. In the instance case, the petitioner is a grandson whose mother was alive at the time of gift deed and ceiling proceedings. Therefore, he is not entitled to get any benefit under either the Kerala Land Reforms Act or the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, 2001.
4. Heard both sides. The short question that arises for consideration in the Revision Petition is, whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the findings by which the petitioner's claim has been dismissed by the Land Board? Going by the impugned order, it could be seen that the petitioner had not produced any evidence to show that on 1-1-1970 he was a minor. Hence I cannot find fault with the Land Board for not granting any benefit available to the unmarried son as on 1-1-1970.
5. Coming to the claim under the Kerala Stay of Eviction proceedings Act, 2001, going by the Preamble, it is specifically stated that the Act is intended to protect the interest of the small holders and cultivating tenants who purchased or otherwise acquired land for consideration only. Further, Section 3 again states that any cultivating tenant or small holder who holds or possesses any land by way of assignment or for consideration evidenced by registered document or otherwise and which is subsequently found as excess land to be surrendered otherwise is entitled to get stay from eviction proceedings. In the instance case, admittedly, the document under which the petitioner claims ownership and possession over the property is a gift deed, for which consideration is not required. Therefore, I find that the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit under the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings, 2001.
6. Similarly, according to Section 84(1A), exemption is given to daughter or son or son or daughter of a predeceased son or daughter only. But, as rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader, the petitioner is a grandson whose mother was alive at the time of gift deed No.1388/70 under which the petitioner claimed right of ownership. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit under Section 84(1A) of the Land Reforms Act.
7. Coming to the contention that the 1st respondent had already taken possession of excess land, it is seen that the petitioner had contended that 14.92½ acres had been taken possession instead of 13.47½ acres, no evidence has been adduced before the Court nor did he raise such a contention in the claim petition filed before the Land Board. Therefore, I cannot find fault with the Land Board for not considering such a contention.
Thus, this Revision Petition is devoid of merits and it fails at all points. In the result, this Revision Petition is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
(K.HARILAL, JUDGE) okb.