The revision petitioner is a claimant under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, (for short, 'the Act'). The Taluk Land Board initiated ceiling proceedings against one Ramankutty in Ceiling Case No.88/73. Pending the proceedings, Ramankutty died on 12-11-75 and in that proceedings, his son Pazhanan and Pazhanan's son Asokan were impleaded and finally an extent of 6.18 acres of land were ordered to be surrendered. That order was taken up in revision before this Court in CRP No.2950/77 and by order dtd.10-1-79 this Court set aside the order with a direction to take further proceedings under Section 87 of the Act.
2. When the matter was taken up after remand, Sri.
Asokan was found to be the legate of Sri. Ramankutty and therefore the present ceiling case was booked against him as SM-38/1981 and the proceedings were initiated in this case. After enquiry, the Land Board has passed an order on 27-9-1983 directing the assessee to surrender an extent of 4.78 acres in Melarcode Village. This order was challenged by the assessee as well as the State before this Court in CRP. Nos.2499/83 and 2558/84. As per the order dtd. 24-6-93 this Court decided to enhance an extent of 6 cents under exempted category and reduced the extent to be surrendered as 4.72 acres. On the basis of the said order, the Village Officer initiated action to take possession of the said 4.72 acres of land. At that stage, the petitioner herein and his brother Velayudhan filed I.A. Nos.62/93 and 63/93 before the Taluk Land Board claiming right, title and interest over the entire land included in the ceiling case. The Taluk Land Board rejected the claims put forward by the petitioner and his brother and partially allowed the claim put forward by Velayudhan holding that the properties included in the claim statement were excluded from surrender, but was in computing the ceiling area. While hearing of the above petitions were going on, the declarant Asokan filed an option statement showing his willingness to surrender 4.72 acres of land in various Sy. Nos. of Melarcode Village. Pursuantly, the Taluk Land Board in its order dtd.31-5-1994 in SM.38/81 had directed the assessee to surrender an extent of 4.72 acres of land in various survey numbers of Melarcode Village.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner and Asokan filed separate Revision Petitions before this Court as CRP Nos.1275/94 and 2314/94 respectively. After hearing, a common order in both the C.R.Ps have been pronounced by this Court on 12-1-06. As per the said order, this Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Taluk Land Board to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh. The claim put forward by the petitioner was to exclude an extent of 0.27 acres of land in Sy.
No.127/4 and an extent of 2.65 acres in Sy.No.127/7 of Melarcode Village, which he got title and possession by virtue of the Partition Deed No.1392/89 of S.R.O., Nenmara executed by Pazhanan, the father of the petitioner, Kalyanikutty and the petitioner and Sri. Asokan. After considering the claim, the Taluk Land Board dismissed the claim petition on a finding that this land has already been declared as excess land as per the order of the Taluk Land Board, Alathur, dtd. 27-8-1983 in SM.38/81 and it was partially accepted by this Court in its common order in CRP. Nos. 2499/83 and 2558/84 dt. 24-6-1993. The legality and propriety of the said finding are under challenge in this Revision Petition on various grounds.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the Taluk Land Board failed to notice that the petitioner is in possession of 95 cents in Sy.No.127/4 and 2.65 cents in Sy.No.127/7 and the declarant has no right over the said property. The Land Board ought to have found that the petitioner's father had tenancy right and he was possessing the property on behalf of the joint family. It was only later the petitioner got the property and in that case the declarant was not in possession of the property. In short, the contention is that the property directed to be surrendered was a joint joint family property and the partition was effected in the year 1989 and in that partition deed the property directed to be surrendered is set apart in the name of the petitioner.
5. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contends that in compliance with the direction of this Court in CRP No.1275/94 the Land Board meticulously considered the claim of the petitioner in its correct perspective. This Court in CRP Nos.2499/83 & 2558/84 confirmed the order passed by the Land Board directing Sri. Asokan to surrender an extent of 4.72 acres of property after deducting 6 cents. The partition deed under which the petitioner claims title and possession over the property was executed in the year 1989 subsequent to the confirmation of the order directing Sri.Asokan to surrender an extent of 4.72 acres of property. Therefore, it could be reasonably presumed that the subsequent partition deed had been executed with an intention to circumvent the direction which was confirmed in CRP Nos.2499/83 and 2558/84. Thus, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order under challenge.
6. Heard both sides. The short question that arises for consideration is whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the finding that the petitioner's claim under the Partition Deed No.1392/89 would be unsustainable in view of the order passed in CRP Nos.2499/83 and 2558/84 directing Asokan to surrender an extent of 4.72 acres of land as excess land, above the ceiling limits .
7. Going by the impugned order, it could be seen that the petitioner is claiming right, title and possession over the property under the Partition Deed No.1392/89 executed between Sri. Pazhanan, the father of the petitioner and Sri. Kalyanikutty, the mother of the petitioner and Sri. Asokan, the brother of the petitioner as well as the declarant in the ceiling case. Here, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the property was in joint possession of the said persons under joint tenancy. But, going by the impugned order itself, it is seen that pursuant to the order in CRP No.2950/77, when the proceedings were initiated against Sri. Pazhanan, the father of the petitioner under Section 87 of the Act. Sri. Pazhanan entered appearance and contended that he has neither received nor accepted any of the properties that belongs to late Sri. Ramankutty, the original declarant and all the properties that belong to late Ramankutty were devolved on Sri. Asokan, the present declarant against whom the present ceiling order is passed as per the will testated by Sri. Ramankutty on 6-1-1969 and suo moto proceedings were initiated against Asokan in SM- 38/81 on the basis of that will. If that be so, the present claim of the petitioner that the properties were in joint possession after 1989 under joint tenancy among the sharers in the Partition Deed No.1392/89 up to the said partition deed is unsustainable and liable to be rejected. Moreover, no evidence had bee adduced to show the alleged joint tenancy said to have been prevailed up to 1989.
8. Indisputably, the order dtd. 27-8-1983 in SM-38/81 was accepted by this Court in the common order passed in CRP No.2499/83 and 2558/84, after reducing 6 cents of property only from the total extent of 4.78 acres of property directed to be surrendered. Thus, the property liable to be surrendered by the declarant Asokan had attained a finality. Obviously, the Partition Deed No.1392/89 had been executed after the said order confirming the order directing Asokan to surrender 4.72 acres of property. Therefore, I find that the claim raised under the partition deed of 1989 has no legs to stand in view of the earlier order passed by the Land Board in SM- 38/81 and confirmed by this Court in CRP Nos.2499/83 and 2558/84. Thus, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order under challenge and this Revision Petition is devoid of merits.
In the result, this Revision Petition is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
(K.HARILAL, JUDGE) okb.