The petitioners are the legal heirs of the declarant Sri.P.Guruswamy and they are challenging the order passed by the Taluk Land Board, Chittur in C.C.No.1356 of 1973, directing them to surrender another extent of 2.84 acres of land in lieu of 2.84 acres of land, which is excluded from the account of the declarant on the application of the 4th respondent. As per the order dated 29/01/1982 in C.C.No.1356 of 1973, the Taluk Land Board, Chittur, on the Ceiling Return filed by the declarant, held that he is liable to surrender possession of 10.86 acres of land in different Survey Numbers. Subsequently, an order was passed rectifying the mistake in the extent of land comprised in S.No.573B/3A and 573B/7B and the extent was increased by 1.37 acres and extent was given credit to in the account of the declarant. While so, the 4th respondent filed application under Sec.85(8) of the Land Reforms Act and the Taluk Land Board by order dated 28/11/1998 held that the grandfather of the 4th respondent Sri.Velayudhan had given proper compensation to the declarant and thus he was a bonafide purchaser and upheld the purchase certificate issued in this regard to Sri. Velayudhan and further it is also held that 2.84 acres is to be re-conveyed to the 4th respondent and an equal extent of property can be taken from the account of the declarant.
2. The grievance of the petitioners in this revision petition is that, the equal extent directed to be taken from the possession of the declarant is made without looking into the aspect that there is no total extent to satisfy the requirement of the said surrender if deduction is made by allowing the 4th respondent's claim. In short, he is not liable to make good the deduction of 2.84 acres of land as a corresponding deduction also has to be made from the total account of the declarant. Thus, this revision petition is filed challenging the legality and propriety in the finding that the legal heirs of the declarant are liable to surrender 2.84 acres of land to make good the deductions allowed to the 4th respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners advanced arguments challenging the findings that the petitioners and R5 as the legal heirs of the deceased Guruswamy, the declarant, are liable to surrender 2.84 acres of property to make good the deductions in the total extent of property directed to be surrendered on the application of the 4th respondent under Sec.85(8) of the KLR Act.
4. Going by the impugned order, it is seen that, initially, Sri.Velayudhan, the predecessor in interest of the 4th respondent staked a claim that he is the owner in possession of 2.84 acres of property and eventually, the claim got rejected. However, again, the claim is seen re-opened, pursuant to direction of this Court in O.P.No.3662 of 1998, on the application of the 4th respondent who is none other than the grandson of deceased Velayudhan.
5. In O.P.No.3662 of 1998, this Court directed the Land Board to dispose of 85(8) application filed by the 4th respondent within three months. In view of the above direction, the Taluk Land Board re-opened the ceiling case of the declarant, Guruswamy. After considering the claim raised by the 4th respondent, the Land Board allowed his claim and excluded from the total extent of 10.86 acres of property directed to be surrendered and further the petitioners are directed to surrender possession of an extent of 2.84 acres in lieu of the land excluded in favour of the 4th respondent.
6. On an analysis of the order itself, it could be seen that, an extent of 2.84 acres of property excluded from 10.86 acres of property directed to be surrendered, was originally included in the total account of the deceased declarant, Guruswamy. If that be so, needless to say, if any extent of property is deducted from the total extent of the property directed to be surrendered, corresponding deduction has to be made in the total extent of the property in the account of the declarant. If the legal heirs are not in possession of 2.84 acres, they are not liable to surrender that extent of property. Hence, I find that the direction to the revision petitioners and 5th respondent to surrender 2.84 acres of land in lieu of 2.84 acres of land which was excluded on the application of the 4th respondent, is illegal and unsustainable and liable to be set aside and I do so. Hence, the direction in the impugned order to the extent above is set aside.
The revision petition is partly allowed.
Stu //True copy// P.A to Judge K.HARILAL, JUDGE.