The declarant in L.B. No. 605/1972 on the file of the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad was Kandan son of Karuppan. The declarant was held not to possess any land in excess of his ceiling area. It was so held by order dated 25.08.1987 in C.R.P. No. 2310/1984 filed by him. The relevant part of the order which has concededly become final is extracted hereunder:-
“In the light of what is stated above, it is clear that the petitioner is not liable to surrender any land. It cannot therefore be said that the petitioner holds any land in excess of the ceiling area. He therefore is not liable to surrender any land.
The order under challenge therefore is liable to be set aside. I accordingly set aside the same.
The C.R.P. is allowed. No order as to costs.”
2. The claim made by the petitioner in C.R.P. No.
257/2009 is under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 which is extracted hereunder:-
“S.7E. Certain persons who acquired lands to be deemed tenants. - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 74 or Section 84 or in any other provisions of this Act, or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract, custom or usage, or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or other authority, a person who at the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005, is in possession of any land, not exceeding four hectares in extent, acquired by him or his predecessor-in-interest by way of purchase or otherwise on payment of consideration from any person holding land in excess of the ceiling area, during the period between the date of the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964), and the date of commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005, shall be deemed to be a tenant.”
Thus a person who has acquired possession of any land by way of purchase or otherwise on payment of consideration from any person holding land in excess of the ceiling area alone can make a claim. The declarant in the instant case is not a person holding land in excess of the ceiling area as per the final order in C.R.P. No. 2310/1984 referred to above. Even otherwise the claim of the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 257/2009 is on the basis of an agreement entered into with one Unnamala Ammal and others. The declarant no where figures in the agreement dated 21/10/1974 relied on by the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 257/2009 to raise his claim under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The remedy if any of the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 257/2009 is to work out his claim elsewhere against the proper persons and not against the declarant who does not hold land in excess of the ceiling area. It necessarily follows that the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 257/2009 cannot successfully maintain his claim under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and C.R.P. No. 257/2009 has to fail.
3. The petitioner in C.R.P. No. 259/2009 raised his claim under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 which is extracted hereunder:-
“S.85(8). Where the Taluk Land Board determines the extent of the land to be surrendered by any person without hearing any person interested, such person may, within sixty days from the date of such determination, apply to the Taluk Land Board to set aside the order and, if he satisfies the Taluk Land Board that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing before the Taluk Land Board it shall set aside the order and shall proceed under sub-section (5) or sub- section (7), as the case may be.”
4. The following pre-requisites are essential to maintain an application before the Taluk Land Board under the statutory provision afore quoted:-
i) The Taluk Land Board should determine the extent of the land to be surrendered by a person.
ii) Such determination should be without hearing any person interested.
iii) Such interested person should satisfy the Taluk Land Board that he was prevented by sufficient costs from appearing in the proceedings.
There is no order determining any extent of land to be surrendered by the declarant in the instant case. The order in C.R.P. No. 2310/1984 of this Court concludes the issue as regards the liability of the declarant to surrender any excess land. There is no question of the land of the petitioner in C.R.P. No 259/2009 having been included in the identity of excess lands therefore. The petitioner in C.R.P. No. 259/2009 cannot also successfully maintain the application under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and it necessarily follows that C.R.P. No. 259/2009 has to fail.
The impugned order is affirmed and the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs.
DCS V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE