The father of the petitioner is said to be an assignee from the declarant under Sale Deed (Document No.1139/75 SRO, Palakkad) dated 31.3.1975. The property so taken assignment of is 3.05 acres in Survey Nos.836/1 and 793/C/1 of Puthussery Central Village. The petitioner contends that his parents died and the property is in his possession under a family arrangement. The petitioner sought the benefit of Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 ('the Act' for short). 2. The claim of 'deemed tenancy' so put forth by the petitioner has been turned down by the Taluk Land Board. The only reason stated is that no certificate of title under Section 106 B of the Act has been obtained earlier. There is no such necessity to obtain a prior certificate of title as held in Rajeev v. District Collector [2014 (4) KLT 209].
3. The Senior Government Pleader asserts that the lands in question have long ago been assumed possession of as excess lands. Moreover the CRP (LR) No.371/2012 2 transaction is intended to defeat the ceiling provisions and hit by the proviso to Section 84(4) of the Act. Reliance is placed on the decision in State of Kerala v. Thomas Kurian [2014 (4) KLT 417]. I do feel that all aspects of the matter have not been considered by the Taluk Land Board in the claim under Section 85(8) of the Act.
4. The impugned order of the Taluk Land Board is set aside in so far as it relates to the claim of the petitioner only. The Taluk Land Board, Palakkad is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the decision in Rajeev's case and Thomas Kurian's case afore-quoted. The legal heirs of the declarant as well as the petitioner shall be put on notice before the final orders are passed anew. The Taluk Land Board shall take the proceedings to a logical end within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.
nj.
Sd/-
V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.