The petitioner's father had owned an Estate, the ceiling case in respect of which was concluded by Ext.P1 order of the Land Board dated 22.11.1973. As per Ext.P1 order, it was found that out of a total extent of 2776.76 Acres, an extent of 1530 Acres was available to be kept by the declarant, by virtue of an exemption under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. An extent of 14.50 Acres was found to fall within the ceiling limit applicable to the declarant. The balance extent of 1232.26 Acres of land was found liable to be surrendered to the State by the declarant. It is the case of the petitioner in the instant case that while taking possession of the lands that had to be surrendered to the State, the 4th respondent took possession of 250.32 Acres in Naduvil village and Arangam desom in Alakode village, in excess of the land that had to be surrendered in the said villages. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, insofar as the portion of the property that was included in the area liable to be surrendered was in the possession of strangers, the 4th respondent took other lands, that were included in the exemption under Section 81, to make up for the land that was not available for taking over as per Ext.P1 order. It is this action of the 4th respondent that was impugned by the petitioner all along. When the declarant sought restoration of the exempted lands taken from him, the 3rd respondent passed an order rejecting the said request. This led the petitioner to prefer O.P.No.21525 of 1999 which resulted in Ext.P3 judgment dated 09.09.1999 that directed the Land Board to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders. By Ext.P4 order dated 29.05.2000, the Land Board took the stand that the extent of 250.32 Acres that was claimed by the petitioner had actually been re-conveyed to the father of the petitioner. The petitioner took objection to such a finding by the Land Board and preferred W.P.(C).No.4589 of 2004 challenging the said order. This Court considered the said writ petition, together with a revision petition filed by the State, and also considered Ext.P5 report of the Advocate Commissioner who had been appointed in a suit to look into the holdings of the declarant that had since been surrendered to the State. By Ext.P6 judgment dated 22.11.2010 this Court issued the following directions while allowing the petitions:
(i) Exhibit P7, order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the State Land Board for fresh decision.
(ii) The Land Board shall ascertain whether pursuant to Ext.P11, order dated August 3, 1973 in C.R.P.Nos.1130 and 1146 of 1973 the actual extent of land liable to be surrendered as excess land pursuant to Ext.P1, order and the land which predecessor-in-interest of petitioner was found entitled to be in possession has been surveyed, identified and demarcated. If it is already done the Land Board has to specify such area with its boundaries, survey numbers and such other details as are necessary for identification. If it is not already done, the land Board has to undertake that exercise and fix the land to be surrendered to the Government.
(iii) The Land Board has also to decide whether the plantation – 250.32 acres (referred to by the Advocate commissioner also in Ext.P25, report) is liable to be re- conveyed to the petitioner.
(iv) In considering the claim of petitioner the Land Board shall take into account the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner (Ext.P25) with the State as also party to the said proceeding.”
2. It would appear that, thereafter, the Land Board considered the matter and in purported compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment, passed Ext.P7 order stating that the claim of the petitioner with regard to the alleged 250 Acres of land that had been taken from her father in excess, was the result of a wrong understanding of the petitioner of the facts in the case and further, that some of the lands in respect of which re-conveyance was sought by the petitioner had since vested with the Forest Department and, therefore, the petitioner would have to prefer her claim before the competent authorities under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Ext.P7 order of the Land Board is impugned in the present writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the said order cannot be seen as one passed in compliance with the directions of this Court in Ext.P6 judgment.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent wherein the sequence of events leading to the determination, of the lands to be surrendered by the petitioners father pursuant to the ceiling case initiated against him, are narrated. It is also stated that the surrendered lands were taken possession of by the Revenue Authorities during 1974 and 1975 itself and as the declarant had failed to offer any explanation for the inordinate delay of 24 years in preferring the claim for exemption, it was not possible for the State to have a re-look into the matter at this point in time. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the Advocate Commissioner's report is also objected to on the ground that no notice was given to the revenue officials prior to the inspection by the Advocate Commissioner.
4. I have heard Sri.M.K.S.Menon, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri.Raju Sebastian Vadakkekkara, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent and the learned Special Government Pleader (Revenue) for respondents 1 to 4.
5. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I note that in Ext.P6 judgment of this Court, there were specific directions issued to the Land Board to ascertain the actual extent of land that was liable to be surrendered as excess land pursuant to Ext.P1 order, and the land which the predecessor in interest of the petitioner was found entitled to be in possession of, by surveying the land, identifying the area in question and demarcating the said area. It was made clear in the said judgment that if this exercise had not already been done by the land Board, then the Land Board had to undertake that exercise and fix the land to be surrendered to the Government. The Land Board was also directed to decide whether the plantation -250.32 Acres (referred to by the Advocate Commissioner in Ext.P5 report) is liable to be re-conveyed to the petitioner and in that connection to take into account the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. Ext.P7 is the order of the Land Board, passed in purported compliance with the directions of this Court in Ext.P6 judgment. On a perusal of Ext.P7, it is seen that while details are given as to the extent of land that was covered by Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and, therefore, covered by the exemption granted to the declarant, the extent of land that was liable to be surrendered by the declarant and the extent of land that was permitted to be retained by him as falling within the ceiling limit, there are no details forthcoming with regard to the identity of the said lands more so with reference to the survey numbers within which they were situated, the boundaries of the said lands and the demarcation that was directed by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment. In my view, Ext.P7 order does not comply with the directions issued by this Court which were quite specific with regard to the demarcation of the land. The Land Board had essentially to consider the claim of the petitioner that there was an area of 250 Acres of land, spread over Survey Nos.292/1A of Naduvil village and Survey.No.53/1A of Arangam Desom in Alakode village, that was not made available to the petitioner's father pursuant to Ext.P1 order. It has been the suggestion of the petitioner all along that these lands could have been mixed up with the lands that had to be surrendered by the declarant pursuant to Ext.P1 order. It was essentially to resolve this issue that the directions were issued in Ext.P6 judgment. The Land Board, therefore, had necessarily to carry out an exercise to ascertain the extent of land in Survey Nos.292/1A of Naduvil village and Survey.No.53/1A of Arangam Desom in Alakode village which formed part of the lands exempted, in terms of section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and was allowed to be retained by the petitioner in Ext.P1 order. Similarly, the land Board had also to demarcate that area in the aforementioned Survey Numbers, which formed part of the lands that had to be surrendered to the Government by the declarant pursuant to Ext.P1 order. It is this exercise that was directed to be done by Ext.P6 judgment and is not seen done in Ext.P7 order. Accordingly, I am of the view that the Land Board has to be directed to redo the exercise contemplated by Ext.P6 judgment afresh and, in order to enable it to do so, I quash Ext.P7 order in this writ petition. The 2nd respondent Land Board is directed to Survey, identify and demarcate the areas covered by the exemption granted to the declarant in Ext.P1 order in Survey No.292/1A of Naduvil village and Survey.No.53/1A of Arangam Desom in Alakode village. The demarcation and identification shall be done not only with reference to the survey numbers but also with reference to the boundaries and the exact extent so that the entirety of the lands in these survey numbers which were covered by the exemption can be clearly identified. It would be desirable for the Land Board to produce a sketch showing the lie of the land so demarcated. In demarcating the lands as above, it will be open to the Land Board to issue suitable directions to the Taluk Land Board concerned, and the Tahsildar concerned, so as to get the work done through them.
The entire exercise shall be completed after notice to the affected parties, including the 5th respondent, within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
With these directions, the writ petition is disposed.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns