The petitioners are the grand children of one Smt. Savithri Antharjanam, D/o. Narayanan Namboodiri who was the plaintiff in the partition suit, O.S. No.220/1936 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Ponnani. Exhibits P2 and P3 are the judgment and decree passed by the said court on 26-10- 1946. In the final decree proceedings the said Smt. Savithri Antharjanam was alloted with the share of properties described as item Nos.18 to 24, in Ext.P3. The said Smt. Savithri Antharjanam died and the petitioners claim that they are the legal heirs being children of her daughter, Smt. Unnimaya Antharjanam, who had inherited with the rights and interest over the said properties. Case of the petitioners is that, the properties alloted to Smt. Savithri Antharjanam in Ext.P3 final decree was included in the ceiling case before the Taluk Land Board, Tirur in which the declarant was one Sri. P.V. Veerali Haji who was the predecessor in interest of respondents 6 to 8 herein. By virtue of Ext.P5 order passed by the Taluk Land Board, as early as in the year 1999, property having a total extent of 50.495 acres were ordered to be surrendered, in which the aforesaid property belonging to Smt. Savithri Antharjanam was wrongly included. It is alleged that the property was included in the ceiling case on the basis of some documents created by the predecessor in interest of respondents 6 to 8. It is further mentioned that Ext.P5 order was subjected to challenge in various subsequent proceedings before this court and by order dated 29-04-2000 the Taluk Land Board had reduced the total extent of land to be surrendered by deleting an extent of 4.39 acres, as per Ext.P6. Contention of the petitioners is that they were not aware of any such proceedings at no point of time. It is contended that property in question was not conveyed by Smt. Savithri Antharjanam or the mother of the petitioners, after passing Ext.P3 final decree. Under such circumstances the petitioners caused Ext.P7 lawyer notice requesting for a modification of the proceedings of the Taluk Land Board, to the extent it included properties belonging to Smt. Savithri Antharjanam which was alloted to her share by virtue of Ext.P3 final decree. But the respondents failed to consider Ext.P8, despite the fact that the same was acknowledged by various authorities. It is admitted that the property in question was taken over possession by respondents 1 to 5 and it was notified for distribution to land less people by way of assignment under the relevant Rules. It is contended that, a 'Pattaya Mela' was arranged on 29-12-2009 with respect to assignment of the land in question. Under such circumstances this writ petition was filed contending that all the proceedings initiated by the Taluk Land Board will not affect the rights of Smt. Savithri Antharjanam which stands inherited to the petitioners and also contending that there was failure to consider Ext.P8 application which ought to have been dealt under Section 85 (8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Hence the petitioners sought relief to the extent of declaration that the properties covered under item No.18 to 24 of schedule-H in Ext.P3 is not liable to be proceeded against, despite Exts.P5 & P6 orders. Inter alia, direction was sought for against the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P8 application. It is further prayed that any steps to assign the land in question till the disposal of Ext.P8 application may be ordered.
2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents it is stated that, the declarant in the ceiling case had included the properties in question in the statement submitted, claiming that he has got 'janmam' and 'kanam' rights over the properties by virtue of registered documents. It is pointed out that one Smt. Unni Uma Antharjanam, D/o. Neelakantan Namboodiri had assigned the 'janmam' rights in the aforesaid properties in favour of the declarant Sri. Veerali Haji by virtue of Ext.R1 (a) sale deed on the basis that she got 'janmam' rights alloted to her by virtue in O.S. No.220/1936. It is further stated that the ceiling case in question was ordered as early as in 1978 directing the declarant to surrender 53.68 acres of property comprised in various survey numbers, including the property which is subject matter of this writ petition. The said order was modified by this court in CRP No.883/1976 by reducing the extent of land to be surrendered to 47.03 Acres. Thereafter various claim petitions filed under Section 85 (8) of KLR Act was considered and the claimants have filed different CRPs before this court. On the basis of orders issued by this court in various writ petitions, the Taluk Land Board again issued fresh orders on 25-09-1990 by reducing the extent to be surrendered as 50.495 Acres. Legal heirs of the declarant again filed CRP No.701/1991 before this court which was dismissed. Thereafter yet another writ petition filed by another person was also dismissed on 13-08-1992. Meanwhile another claim petition under Section 85 (8) was disposed by the Taluk Land Board in the year 1993. CRP filed before this court against the said order was also dismissed in the year 1996. The said order was challenged before hon'ble Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition filed in the year 1997. In the meanwhile by virtue of various judgments this court directed the Taluk Land Board to consider 85 (8) applications which was dismissed by the Taluk Land Board on 29-04-2000. During all these years neither the petitioners nor their predecessor have raised any claims before the Taluk Land Board. The property in question was taken over possession by the Taluk Land Board on various occasions on 14-05-1974, 25-09-1974, 17-03-1992 and 24-08-2009. Land having an extent of 4.16 acres have already distributed by the Government as early as in 1974-75. Inspite of such proceedings the petitioners have never raised any objections, despite knowing about all such proceedings, presumably because they were convinced that the declarant has title over the property. Learned Special Government appearing for the revenue contended that this writ petition was filed in a collusive manner as a last resort in an attempt to stall the steps taken to distribute the land to landless persons.
3. Contention of the petitioners is mainly on the aspect that the Taluk Land Board is bound to consider Ext.P8 application which will come within the ambit and scope of a claim petition under Section 85 (8) of KLR Act. The petitioners are seeking exemption of the property in question on the basis that their grandmother had obtained Exts.P2 & P3 decree, allotting the property of her share. But despite the fact that the said decree was passed as early as in year 1946 there is nothing to show that the property was actually enjoyed by the grandmother of the petitioners at any point of time or by their mother who succeeded in interest. No documents have been produced to show that the petitioners or their predecessors had ever possessed the land or enjoyed the same. Nothing is there to indicate that the property in question was mutated in the revenue records in favour of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners or in favour of themselves. Evidently the ceiling case including the property in question was initiated by the Taluk Land Board as early as in the year 1973. Despite different challenges and series of proceedings agitated before the Taluk Land Board, before this court and before the hon'ble Supreme Court during the period between 1973 and 2009, the petitioners have never approached any such forum with any claim for exemption of the property in question. As contended by the respondents, the 'janmam' right was transferred in favour of the declarants by virtue of a registered document executed in the year 1950. Nothing is indicated to show that the validity of such a document was challenged either by the petitioners or their predecessors at any point of time. Further, as contended by the respondents, the possession over of the property was taken over by the Government in the ceiling proceedings on different dates since 1974 onwards. During these time there was no attempt made from the side of the petitioners or from their predecessor to get the land exempted from the ceiling proceedings. The land was already taken over possession based on various proceedings of the Taluk Land Board and certain portion of the land was already assigned under the relevant provisions of the statute to land less persons. Evidently the petitioner had approached this court only at a time when a notification was issued with respect to assignment of the remaining land and when a 'Pattaya Mela' was arranged for effecting such assignments.
4. From the facts as enumerated above it is evident that the attempt of the petitioners is totally lacking bonafides. There is every circumstances to presume that the attempt in filing this writ petition is by way of collusion between the petitioners and the party respondents, on an experimental basis, in an attempt to stall the distribution of the land, which was already taken over possession under the ceiling case. Therefore this court is not inclined to accept the contentions now raised and to hold that Ext.P8 is a bonafide application made under Section 85 (8) of the Act and for directing any consideration of the same by the Taluk Land Board. Evidently the petitioners have not mentioned any reason in Ext.P8 as to why the Taluk Land Board was not approached within the time limit prescribed under Section 85 (8). Nor there is any explanation with respect to the delay caused seeking condonation of the same. This court is of the considered opinion that the facts and circumstances revealed as above will justify in declining the relief to the petitioners, in exercise of power vested under Article 226, which is basically discretionary in nature.
5. In the result the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
AMG Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE True copy P.A. to Judge