The petitioner herein is the claim petitioner in S.M.3/97 on the files of the Taluk Land Board, Mannarkkad. The above SM proceedings had been initiated under Sec. 85A of the KLR Act 1963 against one Mr. Abdullakoya, S/o Imbichikoya Thangal, who has not filed statement declaring the total extent of property which was in his possession. Suo moto proceedings had been initiated against him and enquiry revealed that the said Abdullakoya has right and possession over 10.29 acres of property. Since he was an adult unmarried person as on 01/01/1970, he was eligible to hold an extent of a minimum of six ordinary acres and a maximum of 7½ acres of land. So, he was directed to surrender an extent of 2.79 acres of land.
2. But, it is the case of the revision petitioner herein that, he is the owner in possession of the above 2.79 acres of property comprised in S.No.347/7 and 316 of Thachanattukara Village. The above property devolved on the petitioner by virtue of sale deed No.1968 of 1996 of Mannarkkadu Sub Registry executed by one Mr. Reghunathan. He had purchased the said property from Mr. Varghese as per document No.9/1988. Thus, the assessee Abdulla Koya had already sold away the property in the year 1984 and thereafter several transactions were effected and eventually, the petitioner got right and possession by virtue of sale deed executed by his predecessor in interest.
3. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to get protection under Sec. 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005 as a deemed tenant. But, the land Board has not considered the said valid claim, though, the petitioner has raised the said claim in the claim petition filed by him before the Land Board. To substantiate the above contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to Annexure A3, the copy of the objection filed by the petitioner before the land Board. Going by Annexure A3, it is seen that the petitioner had specifically raised the contention that he is a deemed tenant under Sec.7E of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the said valid contention has not been considered by the Land Tribunal.
4. In the above view, I find that the Land Board had miserably failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. Therefore, the impugned order under challenge is liable to be set aside at the threshold and I do so. The matter is remitted to the Land Board, Mannarkkad for fresh consideration, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. If the petitioner is desirous of adducing evidence to substantiate the said claim, the Land Board shall give opportunity for the same also. Anyhow, the Land Board shall dispose of the claim within a period of six months from today.
The revision petition is disposed of Stu //True copy// P.A to Judge K.HARILAL, JUDGE.