Antony Dominic, J. This appeal is filed by the petitioner in OP No.16861/2000. The OP was filed challenging Exts.P4 and P5, order passed by the 1st respondent dismissing Ext.P1 application made by the appellant under Section 81(1)(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and the notice issued by the Taluk Land Board. By the impugned judgment, learned single Judge declined to interfere with Exts.P4 and P5 taking the view that the contentions now urged before this Court could be urged before the Taluk Land Board. It is this judgment which is under challenge before us.
2. We heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant is now holding about more than 31 acres of land in Chalakudy area. In 1993, they received a notice from the Taluk Land Board enclosing a draft statement. Thereupon, they filed Ext.P1 application dated 28/9/94 before the 1st respondent seeking exemption of the land as provided under Section 81(1)(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. That was considered by the Government in the light of the reports that were obtained from the District Collector and was finally rejected by Ext.P4 order dated 25.2.2000. Thereafter, they received Ext.P5 notice from the Taluk Land Board proposing to continue the ceiling proceedings against them. This was the circumstance in which the original petition was filed. The learned single Judge has declined to interfere with the proceedings and therefore this appeal.
4. Although various contentions are raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant explaining the activities of the appellant entitling the appellant for the benefit of Section 81(1)(3) of the Act and these claims were contradicted by the learned Government Pleader also, we do not think that in the nature of the order that is required to be passed, it is necessary to deal with those contentions.
5. We note that as rightly contended by the learned senior counsel, Ext.P4 order was passed rejecting Ext.P1 application of the appellant without issuing them a notice or allowing an opportunity of hearing. According to the learned senior counsel, as a result, the appellant lost an opportunity to substantiate its claims by producing necessary materials before the 1st respondent. We also feel that as a result of the denial of such opportunity, prejudice was caused to the appellant in as much as they lost an opportunity to substantiate their claims.
6. In such circumstances, without expressing anything on the merits of the rival contentions urged before us, we dispose of this appeal setting aside Ext.P4 order passed by the 1st respondent and directing the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P1 and pass orders thereon. This shall be done by the 1st respondent within six months, after issuing notice to the appellant and affording them an opportunity of hearing and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It is clarified that if the proceedings before the Taluk Land Board have culminated in any order, the parties will be governed by the orders thus passed.
The appellant shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance.
Rp //True Copy// Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE PA to Judge