The petitioner is the declarant in Ceiling Case No.217/TVLA of the Taluk Land Board, Thiruvalla. The Taluk Land Board finally passed order under Sec.85(5) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act'), 1964 determining the land owned and held by the declarant and the land that has to be surrendered as execess land. The Taluk Land Board finally found that the declarant is holding an excess land of an area 1 acre and 28 cents and this was ordered to be surrendered. The petitioner in terms of Sec.85(6) of the Act filed an option statement on 07/11/1981 indicating the land, which he proposed to be surrendered. The land which was offered for surrender was 1 acre and 10 cents in R.S.No.204/6 (old S.No.161/4A) and 18 cents in R.S.No.231/10 (old S.No.164/14) of Kadapra Village. The said property had been surrendered and the Taluk Land Board took possession of the land.
2. But, thereafter, the petitioner came to know that due to a mistake committed, he has surrendered land consisting of surppakavu and temple where various rites and rituals are being performed. Realising the mistake committed by him, he had filed an application before the Taluk Land Board for substitution of the property. Thereafter, this Court has passed an order requiring the Land Board to decide whether the land offered by the petitioner can be accepted. But the Land Board has not considered his petition. Feeling aggrieved, again the petitioner filed W.P.C.No.35733/08 before this Court and this Court by the order dated 02/04/2009 directed the Land Board to consider the fresh substitution as expeditiously as possible. Pursuant to the above order of this Court, the Land Board again considered the fresh substitution offered by the petitioner and rejected the same; but excluded 10 cents of property from 1.28 acres of property which he had surrendered at first and the petitioner is directed to surrender 1.07.399 acres of property within one week from 05/10/2009. This order is under challenge in this revision petition.
3. Going by the impugned order, it is seen that, the fresh substitution is rejected, on the reason that, the alternative property offered by the petitioner is not an inhabitable one. It is seen that the petitioner had offered paddy land in lieu of the property which he had surrendered earlier.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of this revision petition, the petitioner has filed another application dated 08/04/2013 before the Land Board expressing his willingness to surrender an additional extent of 21.60 ares of property in R.S.No.145/5 itself so as to compensate the difference in the nature and lie of the property. But, the said application has not been considered so far.
5. Having regard to the fresh offer expressing willingness to surrender an extent of 21.60 ares more, I find that, in view of fresh offer to compensate the difference in the lie of the property, the application dated 08/04/2013 deserves a fresh consideration. In view of the Sec.85(6) of the KLR Act, I am of the opinion that, if the declarant is willing to surrender more extent of property so as to compensate the difference in the nature and lie of the property which he had surrendered earlier, the same also can be considered so as to protect his convenience also.
6. Consequently, the impugned order under challenge will stand set aside and the Land Board is directed to consider the application dated 08/04/2013, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and thereafter arrive at a fresh conclusion within a period of six months from today. If the fresh offer is not acceptable, the impugned order will stand in force.
The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
Stu //True copy// P.A to Judge K.HARILAL, JUDGE.