Aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2013 whereby the Taluk Land Board, Chittur refused to accept the plea of the petitioners with regard to 15.51 Acres of land comprised in Survey Nos.736/2, 738 and 347 of Vadakarapathi village in Chittur Taluk in Palakkad District, the petitioners have come up in revision. 2. Most of the facts are not in dispute. The records indicate that 15.51 Acres of land was resumed in favour of one Guruswami and while he was holding the property, the petitioners purchased 14.27 Ares of land from him. It is thereafter that claim petition was filed by the petitioners. Since there was long delay in finalizing the proceedings, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.17828/2013 for necessary reliefs. In the report of the authorized officer it was indicated that property having an extent of 15.51 Ares was resumed to Guruswami. The authorized officer also reported that out of 15.51 Acres of land, 14.27 Acres have been assigned in favour of the petitioners. In the light of these facts, the authorized officer reported that the application filed by the petitioners could be considered. It was also recommended that in the light of the resumption order passed in respect of 15.51 Acres of land as per Section 85(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, that extent of property could be reduced from the declarant's account. Probably, not satisfied with the above report, another report was called for and report dated 06.07.2013 was filed by the authorized officer. He reiterated what is stated in the earlier report and also pointed out that for the property in respect of which resumption order was passed, he had obtained possession certificate. The authorized officer refers to the suit also in which Guruswami came out successful.
3. The authorized officer in his report stated that there were no proceedings against resumption and no appeal pending against the resumption proceedings and that had become final. In fact, in the light of the authorized officer's report, the issue that was called upon to consider was regarding the identity of the resumption order. However, the Taluk Land Board dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the petitioners had not produced any document to show that they had entitled to the benefit under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
4. On the very face of it, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It may be remembered that the application filed by the petitioners is dated 27.01.1999 i.e. long before the amendment incorporating Section 7E of Kerala Land Reforms Act had come into force. The petitioners relied on the resumption proceedings in favour of Guruswami. Going by the authorized officer's report, there is no challenge to the resumption proceedings and the order had become final.
5. One may refer to Sections 16A and 22 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act in this regard. It was from the said Guruswami that the petitioners had purchased 14.27 Acres of land. Instead of considering the issue in this respect, the Taluk Land Board had erroneously considered the application as one claiming the benefit under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act which obviously was not the provision relied on for the purpose for which the application had been filed by the petitioners. It is therefore clear that the impugned order cannot be sustained as far as the petitioners are concerned.
In the result, this petition is allowed and the impugned order as far as the petitioners are concerned is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Taluk Land Board to consider it afresh in the light of what has been stated above.
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp // True Copy // P.A. to Judge.