All these Revision Petitions arose from a common order dated 12-11-2008 in TLB.1740/73/TBA on the files of the Taluk Land Board, Taliparamba. The revision petitioners are claim petitioners under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. Each of them claims that they are the owners in possession of 2 Acres of landed property, each in Re- Sy.No.174 of Vellora Amsom in different boundaries. They have been in possession and enjoyment of the property by virtue of Janmam Sale Deed No.96/1994, 95/1994 and 94/1994 of S.R.O., Mathamangalam, executed by Palakkotan Tharammal Sainava Beevi and Kunhipathumma. The petitioners further stated that the property measuring 6 Acres was taken in possession by Azhikkotantakath Kunhabdulla on oral lease in 1960 from Janmi of Kuppatakkan Kunhiraman Nambiar and the said Kunhabdulla assigned his tenancy right to Palakkotan Tharammal Ravia Beevi and Sainava Beevi, who by Assignment Deed 94/19722 of S.R.O., Mathamangalam, obtained Janmam right over the same under O.A.No.23918/76 from Payyannur Land Tribunal and obtained Certificate of Purchase No.5003/77 for the same. Subsequently, Ravia Beevi's undivided one half right over the said property was assigned to her daughter Kunhipathumma by Gift Deed No.1425/85. The petitioners claim that it was from the said Sainava Beevi and Kunhipathumma the petitioners purchased 2 Acres each by Janmam Sale Deeds 96/94, 95/94 and 94/94 of S.R.O., Mathamangalam. According to the petitioners, the land was full of cashew trees and the same had been converted into a land of rubber trees aged 10 years and the re-survey number shown in the document was 155/1E and, according to the Village Officer's certificate, the property was in Re-Sy.No.174 and rectification documents No.825/98, 826/98 and 824/98 were made thereafter. According to them, they have perfected their right and title over the said property by virtue of the title deeds mentioned above and continued long possession and enjoyment of the property by them and their predecessors-in-interest from 1960 onwards. Thus, as regards devolution of title, the petitioners have a definite case.
2. But the grievance of the petitioners is that while they were enjoying the said property, on 25-11-2005, they came to know that the said land is alleged to have been wrongly included in the excess land in the name of Vengayil Rugmini Kettilamma to be distributed among the landless labourers. The petitioners claim that the said property had never been in possession and enjoyment of Vengayil family. In the above context, they had preferred Form-6 applications under Section 85(8) of the KLR Act for excluding the said property from the account of the declarant. But the Taluk Land Board rejected their claim mainly on the reason that Form-6 application was filed after 60 days, the period of limitation. The order rejecting the claim of the petitioners is under challenge in this Revision.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners advanced arguments challenging the findings in the impugned order. The sum and substance of the arguments is that the Taluk Land Board has evidently abdicated the jurisdiction under Section 85 (8) of the KLR Act and passed the impugned order in a perfunctory manner, without application of mind. Though the matter in dispute involved in their application was dealt with identity of the property alone, the Taluk Land Board misunderstood the actual matter in issue involved in their claims and went wrong by tracing the petitioners' title over the property and arrived at a finding that the petitioners did not produce any document or evidence to prove their claim over the title and possession of the property in Re-Sy.No.174 of Kuttoor, prior to 15-9-1963. The learned counsel further submits that 20.75 Acres of property which was directed to be surrendered by the declarant Vengayil Rugmini Kettilamma had already been surrendered and disbursed to 83 landless labourers and no land need be surrendered from the account of the declarant. The learned counsel drew my attention to the report filed by the Authorised Officer justifying his arguments advanced at the Bar.
4. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader advanced arguments to justify the findings in the impugned order and submits that the petitioners are claiming title and possession over 21.30 Acres of property which is directed to be surrendered by the deceased declarant. It is also submitted that all the documents produced by the petitioners pertain to a period after 15-9-1963.
5. Heard both sides. The short question that arises for consideration is, whether the findings by which the Taluk Land Board dismissed the application under Section 85(8) of the KLR Act are erroneous or legally unsustainable, or the Taluk Land Board failed to decide any question of law?
6. Going by the pleadings of both parties, it is understood that the identity of the property for which the petitioners claim title and possession, and the identity of 6 Acres of property which had already been surrendered by the declarant, are matters in issue involved in the application filed by the petitioners under Section 85(8) of the KLR Act. The above view is supported by the report filed by the Authorised Officer, who conducted enquiry under Section 105 of the KLR Act.
7. I have meticulously considered the certified copy of the report filed by the Authorised Officer, which is produced by the petitioners. Going by the report filed by the Authorised Officer, it could be seen that the Authorised Officer had categorically reported that the total extent of the property comprised in Sy.No.174 would come about 226.75 Acres and out of that extent of property in that survey number, 20.75 Acres of property which was directed to be surrendered by the declarant Vengayil Rugmini Kettilamma had already been surrendered and the same had been disbursed to 83 agricultural labourers. If that be so, in my view, no enquiry need be conducted as regards the petitioners' title over the property. It is also stated that 20.75 Acres of property involved in TLB-1740/1973 had been undertaken by the District Collector vide file Nos.B8.55851/1977, B8.55852/2000, B8.55853/2000 and the orders passed thereunder assigning the said land in the name of agricultural labourers. It is also stated that the property in possession of each petitioners is having separate well defined boundaries and lines in an identifiable manner from the other properties. Further, the Authorised Officer has perused the entire revenue records and he was convinced of the fact that the petitioners have been paying property tax for their lands. Moreover, the said property is seen cultivated and the rubber trees standing there are aged more than 15 years. It is also stated that the entire extent of property which was directed to be taken as excess land from Re-Sy.No.174 had already been taken over and disbursed to agricultural labourers. But, the Taluk Land Board had lost sight of the above findings arrived at by the Authorised Officer in exercise of his power under Section 105 of the KLR Act and, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel, the Taluk Land Board has passed the order in a perfunctory manner, without application of mind over the real matter in issue involved in their claim petitions.
8. In my view, no enquiry need be conducted as to the title and possession of the petitioners' predecessors-in-interest prior to 15-9-1963, in view of the finding of the Authorised Officer that 20.75 Acres of property which was directed to be surrendered by the declarant Vengayil Rugmini Kettilamma had already been surrendered and the same had been disbursed to 83 agricultural labourers vide orders passed by the District Collector. It is also seen that the petitioners' claim had been dismissed merely on the reason that Form-6 had been filed after 60 days from the order of the Taluk Land Board. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been enjoying the property as title holders in possession and their enjoyment was obstructed in 2005 only by the refusal to accept tax by the Village Officer. In that view, the Taluk Land Board ought not have rejected the claims merely on the reason that the same has not been filed within 60 days from the date of order. At all points, the findings arrived at by the Taluk Land Board are unsustainable and liable to be set aside, and I do so.
9. The matter is remitted back to the Taluk Land Board for fresh consideration, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, in view of the observations made above, within a period of six months from today. The petitioners are at liberty to adduce evidence, if they want to do so.
These Revision Petitions are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(K.HARILAL, JUDGE)
okb.