The revision petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased declarant against whom the ceiling proceedings were re-opened under Sec.85 (9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act'). The deceased declarant Sri.Moidu had filed statement under Sec.85(2) of the Act on 03/02/1973. After verifying the statement, the Taluk Land Board, North Wayanad dropped the case on 13/05/1976 after perusing the ceiling return filed by Sri.Moidu and the report submitted by the Authorised Officer and Special Deputy Tahsildar for Mananthavady. Thereafter, the present proceedings had been initiated on 20/05/1992 invoking power under Sec. 85 (9A) of the Act. After perusing the authorised officer's report, the Taluk Land Board found that 11.16 acres of land liable to be surrendered as excess land above the ceiling limit. This order is under challenge in this revision petition by the legal heirs of the deceased declarant.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that the revision petitioners had no opportunity to adduce evidence. The Taluk Land Board has not given sufficient time for adducing evidence to the revision petitioners. There was no proper enquiry before passing the order. The property directed to be surrendered as excess land are liable to be exempted under Sec. 81(e) of the Act as the same is a coffee plantation.
3. Per contra, the learned Special Govt. Pleader drew my attention to the proceedings which specifically states that the revision petitioners were appeared in the proceedings through a counsel and prayed for time. Thereafter, the case was posted for the evidence of the revision petitioners on several days. But, they did not turn up to give evidence and at last nobody represented them at the time of final hearing also. Thus, the revision petitioners wilfully stayed away from adducing evidence. So, it cannot be said that no opportunity had been given to them to adduce evidence.
4. Going by the impugned order , it is seen that the ceiling proceedings were re-opened under Sec.85(9A) of the Act on 20/05/1992 and show cause notice had been issued to all concerned parties, as to why, the case should not be re-opened within 15 days. Thereafter, the case was posted to 20/08/1992, 23/03/1999, 12/05/1999, 10/08/2000, 29/08/2000, 15/09/2000, 17/10/2000, 30/10/2000, 28/06/2001, 17/07/2001, 27/07/2001, 09/08/2001 and 16/08/2001. The revision petitioners did not appear on any of these days of hearing except on 28/06/2001 and 17/07/2004. On these two days, Adv.Sri.K.T.Vinod Kumar appeared for the revision petitioners and prayed for time to produce records of evidence. But, thereafter, there was no appearance. Though, there was no appearance, again, the case was posted on 14 posting days. In spite of the repeated postings, none of the revision petitioners were present before the Taluk Land Board on those days. In view of the proceedings which obviously shows the wilful negligence on the part of the revision petitioners, I cannot find fault with the Taluk Land Board. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners further prayed for an opportunity to contest the matter on merits by affording further opportunity to adduce evidence. In view of the wilful negligence on the part of the revision petitioners, the said prayer cannot be allowed without imposing adequate cost.
5. Consequently, the impugned order will stand set aside on condition that the revision petitioners shall pay ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the Taluk Land Board, Mananthavady within two months from today. If the revision petitioners pay the said amount of cost within the specified time, the Taluk Land Board shall restore the ceiling proceedings on the files and pass fresh order, after affording sufficient opportunities to adduce evidence. However, the Land Board shall pass order afresh within a period of five months from today.
The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
Stu //True copy// P.A to Judge K.HARILAL, JUDGE.