The State of Kerala filed the above revision petition under Sec.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act'), challenging the order of the Taluk Land Board in T.L.B No.412 of 1973. Ceiling proceedings under Sec.85(5) of the Act had been initiated against the original declarant Sri.Vayalil Mammed Haji and he was directed to surrender 10.66 acres of land found in excess of ceiling limit.
Subsequently, in view of application under 85(8) of the Act, revised orders were passed in the above TLB case and as a result, the surplus land to be surrendered by the declarant was reduced to 4.90 acres. The respondent herein is a claim petitioner under Sec.85(8) of the Act. It is the case of the respondent that he is the absolute owner in possession of 1.97 acres of land in Sy.Nos.51/2 and 51/3 of Kumaranelloor amsom. Initially, the above said property was not included in the account of the declarant. But, subsequently, proceedings under Sec.85(9) had been initiated on a reasoning that earlier the property which is in possession of the respondent was omitted to be included in the account of the declarant, Vayalil Mammed Haji. The respondent filed a petition against the above proceedings under Sec.85(A) of the Act and the same was rejected by the Taluk Land Board. Against which, the respondent herein filed original petition No.19946/1995 before this Court. In the above O.P, the re-opening of the case under 85(A) was confirmed. But, the respondent was given a right to proceed in accordance with provisions under the Act. In view of the liberty granted by this Court, the petitioner filed the above claim petition under Sec.85(8) of the Act. After considering the claim raised by the respondent, the Taluk Land Board accepted the claim and excluded the respondent's property from the ceiling proceedings. The legality and propriety of this order is under challenge in this revision petition filed by the State.
2. Heard both sides. The learned Govt. Pleader advanced arguments challenging the findings of the Land Tribunal. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent advanced arguments to justify those findings. Going by the impugned order, it is the case of the respondent that he had purchased the property from one Veerankutty by virtue of sale deed Nos.859/91 and 860/91 of S.R.O, Mukkom. It is seen that, the said property had been purchased by the mother of Veeran kutty for and on behalf of Veeran kutty who was a minor at that time, by virtue of sale deed No.4352/66 of SLO, Mukkom dated 02/11/1966. Thus, going by the devolution of property, it could be seen that the original declarant, Vayalil Mammed Haji had never been in possession and enjoyment of the said property and he had no connection with the said transaction. In the impugned order also states that the authorised officer has submitted his report stating that the contends in the claim petition are true and correct. But, in the impugned order, it is seen that the Land Board has arrived at a finding that the land was in possession of Veeran Kutty, S/o.Vayalil Mammed Haji, the assessee, as per document No.4352/66 of SLO, Chathamangalam; but being a minor as on 01/01/1970, the land has to be taken into account of Vayalil Mammed Haji, the assessee. In view of the devolution of title derived from the document in favour of the claim petitioner, the respondent, unambiguously, it could be seen that the said property had never been in possession of the assessee, Vayalil Mammed Haji and the said property was purchased by Veeran kutty's mother by name Unniathuma as guardian of the minor son Veeran kutty on 02/11/1966, by virtue of sale deed No.4352/66.
3. Thus, in my view also, the purchase in favour of the respondent would squarely come under Sec.7E of the Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 2006, particularly, when there is no findings to the effect that the sale was effected with an intent to defeat the provisions of the Act and so also the property has not been surrendered so far and has not been distributed to landless labourers or reserved for public purposes so far. I find that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order under challenge. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed.
Stu K.HARILAL, JUDGE.
//True copy// P.A to Judge