The legal heirs of the declarant seek the benefit of Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) in respect of the following transactions:- i) Sale Deed (Document No.1839/91, SRO, Cherplassery) executed by the declarant in favour of one Hamsa and Shamsudeen in respect of 5.5 acres in Survey No.141/8.
ii) Sale Deed (Document No.1840/91, SRO, Cherplassery) executed by the declarant in favour of one Abookacker in respect of 4.92 acres in Survey No.141/8
2. True it is that the plea based on Section 7E of the Act was not urged in earlier proceedings. But the benefit of Section 7E of the Act can be called in aid in view of the non obstante clause found therein. The petitioners contend that the possession of the land acquired by such transferees on payment of consideration is a relevant factor.
3. The Taluk Land Board has not considered the points focused above in a proper perspective as is evident from the order impugned. The plea based on Section 7E of the Act can be raised either by the declarant or the transferees. This is because that much extent of land (if the plea is upheld) would be deleted from the account of the declarant. There is no necessity to obtain a certificate of title under Section 106 B of the Act to raise a claim under Section 7E thereof.
4. I set aside the impugned order and direct the Taluk Land Board to reconsider the issue afresh in the light of Section 7E of the Act. The question as to whether the transfer is intended to defeat the ceiling provisions shall also be considered as mandated under the second proviso to Section 84(4) of the Act. The impugned order of the Taluk Land Board is confirmed in other respects and the remand is only for the purpose of considering the validity of two transactions afore stated. The Taluk Land Board shall issue fresh notice to the parties and finalise the proceedings within four months. The impugned order of the Taluk Land Board is set aside for this limited purpose.
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.
nj.
Sd/- V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.