The revision petitioner is the claim petitioner, who filed the claim petition claiming tenancy in C.C. No.664/73 on the files of the Taluk Land Board, Chittur, which was initiated under Section 85A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act against the deceased declarant K.V. Narayanan. The petitioner is the legal heir of the original tenant Chamunni, who held the said property as cultivating tenant under the declarant K.V. Narayanan. According to the petitioner, 6.30 Acres of land had been taken on lease by Chamunni from Velayudhan, the father of the declarant Narayanan, 53 years back and the same is covered by the Purchase Certificates issued in favour of the petitioner. The impugned order under challenge was passed pursuant to the order passed by this Court in CRP No.2115/91 directing the Taluk Land Board to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of Purchase Certificates issued with respect to 6.30 Acres of land by the Land Tribunal. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the above said property is not included in the total extent of the property directed to be surrendered by the declarant and thereby he is not aggrieved by the order passed against the legal heirs of the deceased declarant, the Taluk Land Board had made certain adverse remarks against the validity of the Purchase Certificates issued to him under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the observations made by the Taluk Land Board against the Purchase Certificates issued by the Land Tribunal are totally unwarranted, in view of the fact that their property has not been included in the total extent of property directed to be surrendered by the declarant.
Therefore, the adverse findings as against the validity of Purchase Certificates issued to them are liable to be set aside. In short, the contention is that actually there was no need to make such adverse observations, particularly, when the property covered by the said Purchase Certificates is not included in the extent of the property directed to be surrendered.
3. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader advanced arguments to justify the observations made against the Purchase certificates. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, in view of the order passed by this Court in the earlier CRP No.2115/91, the Taluk Land Board cannot be found fault for examining the validity of Purchase Certificates.
4. Going by the impugned order, it is seen that the property covered by the Purchase Certificates having an extent of 6.30 Acres is not included in the property directed to be surrendered and the Land Board itself found that the claims of late Vella and Kuppandi have no consideration as they are not aggrieved parties. But, at the same time, in the preceding paragraphs, the Taluk Land Board declared that certain Purchase Certificates, No.156/85 in the name of Vella and 158/85 in the name of Kuppandi, of the Land Tribunal, Kollamkode, were obtained by fraud and collusion and those certificates of purchase are not binding on the Taluk Land Board. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel, those Purchase Certificates are issued by the Land Tribunal under the provisions of the KLR Act. But the Land Board, without considering the legality of the purchase certificates, made adverse remarks against the genuineness of the said certificates.
5. Going by the impugned order, it is seen that the said adverse remarks had been made on the basis of the report filed by the Special Deputy Tahsildar as Authorised Officer under Sec.105 of the KLR Act. I have meticulously considered the said report filed by the Authorised Officer. In the report, the Authorised Officer has specifically stated that as per the Village records and the possession certificate No.4591/06 issued by the concerned Village Officer, the petitioner had been in possession and enjoyment of the said property and before that the petitioner's predecessor in interest late Smt. Vella had been in possession and enjoyment of the property and tax had been paid by her. Thereafter, discarding the revenue records and possession certificates, he further stated that the declarant Narayanan and his son were in possession of the property upto 2005. But the observation made against the petitioner's purchase certificates is not supported by any document and the source from which he obtained above information is not disclosed in the report. In fact, it appears that the said observation is made on the basis of mere hearsay information. Further, he admitted that, at present, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. It is also stated that the petitioner has obtained an order of injunction from the civil court against the legal heirs of the deceased declarant. On an analysis of the report, the finding that the legal heirs of the declarant were in possession of the property after 2005 is not supported by any reliable source or material. Per contra, the finding that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property is supported by the revenue records and possession certificates issued by the competent Village Officer. Thus, in fact, the Revenue Inspector's report is in favour of the petitioner. But the Land Board went wrong by misinterpreting the same to the extent that the Authorised Officer reported that lands were cultivated and crops were taken by Sri. Gopidas and arriving at a finding thereunder that the the purchase certificates had been obtained fraudulently and collusively. Needless to say, the above finding is made contrary to the report filed by the Authorised Officer.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader cited the decision reported in K.T. Gopalan Nambiar v. The Taluk Land Board (1987 KLJ 154) and contended that Taluk Land Board has the power to take a decision discarding the purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal. It is true that this Court held that sub-section (2) to Sec.72-K does not take away the jurisdiction of the Taluk Land Board to make an order under Sec.85(5) after taking into consideration the evidenciary value of the certificate of purchase. But, that power cannot be exercised without application of mind in a perfunctory manner so as to curtail the right of a tenant who obtained a purchase certificate issued by the Land Board invoking the jurisdiction conferred under the KLR Act.
7. Hence I find that the entire observations made against the purchase certificate Nos.156/85 and 158/85 are unwarranted and liable to be set aside and I do so. The above finding is further supported by Partition Deed No.912/72 effected in the family of the declarant Narayanan wherein it is specifically stated that Chamunni, the predecessor in interest was a sub-tenant holding the property. As rightly noted by one member of the Land Board, who made a dissenting opinion, Kuppandy was also impleaded as sub-tenant in the case of 1971 for realising balance pattom. Further, the above finding is supported by the judgments passed in O.S.No.26/06, O.S. No.154/85 and O.S.No. 155/85 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Chittur. In the judgment rendered in all those cases also the right of Kuppandy as a sub tenant was accepted by the concerned Munsiff's Court. Further, I am of the opinion that the opinion expressed in the dissenting note deserves to be upheld and I do so.
8. In the light of the above discussions, all the observations made in the impugned order against Purchase Certificate Nos.156/85 and 158/85 issued in favour of Smt. Vella and the petitioner will stand set aside and this revision petition is allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
(K. HARILAL, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge