The State of Kerala filed this Revision Petition challenging the order dated 18-2-2006 passed in CR-1345/73 on the files of the Taluk Land Board, Thirurangady. The respondents 1 to 9 are the legal heirs of the original declarant one K.P.Mammadkutty Haji and the respondents 10 to 12 are the legal heirs of Kunnummal Ahammedkutty, who is the elder son of the deceased declarant. The proceedings were initiated against the declarant under Section 85A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, and during the pendency of the said proceedings the declarant expired. But, without impleading the legal heirs of the deceased declarant, the Taluk Land Board proceeded and passed an order on 31-5-1983. In that order it was held that the declarant was in possession and ownership of an extent of 110.975 Acres of land equivalent to 66.895 Standard Acre on 1.1.1970 and the family was liable to surrender 6.62 Acres as excess land. The said order was challenged by the respondents 2 and 3 before this Court in CRP No.2346/83. The main contention raised in the said CRP is that the land directed to be surrendered, ie., 2 Acres and 70 cents comprised in Sy.Nos.262/1 and 259/2 of Pallikkal Village was in their possession as donees and hence entitled to get the benefit of Section 84(1A) of the Land Reforms Act. CRP No.2346/83 was allowed by this Court by order dated 3-6-1987 on the ground that the report of the Authorised Officer relating to the aforesaid contention is not on the basis of physical verification. So, the matter was again remitted back to the Land Board. The petitioner herein also challenged the order dated 31-5-1983 of the Taluk Land Board in CRP No.1741/84 before this Court and this Court by order dated 22-11-84 dismissed the said CRP and held that the order dated 31-5-1983 of the Taluk Land Board had happened to be passed without the legal heirs of the declarant who died on 7-7-1978. Hence the order is to be treated as a nullity. In pursuance of the orders passed in CRP Nos.2346/83 and 1741/84, the Taluk Land Board considered the matter afresh and passed the impugned order. The legality and propriety of the said order are under challenge in this Revision Petition.
2. Going by the Revision Petition it is seen that this Revision Petition is filed mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the deletion of 1.93 Acres of public road by the Taluk Land Board is unsustainable under law. Secondly, the deletion of 15 cents from the account of the declarant on the ground that the said property was dedicated to Wakf for Madrassa is also unsustainable.
3. The learned Special Government Pleader advanced arguments challenging the deletions of the land given for the construction of the public road and also for Madrassa. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the Taluk Land Board has erroneously decided or failed to decide the question of law?
4. Going by Section 84(1) of the KLR Act, it is seen that certain voluntary transfers alone are made null and void and that does not include relinquishment of property for public purposes or charitable purposes. On an analysis of the statutory mandate under Section 84, I am of the opinion that those transfers which are made after the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill, 1963, with an intent to defeat the provisions of the Land Reforms Act alone are made null and void. But, in the instance case, it is seen that 1.93 Acres of property was relinquished for the construction of public road and 15 cents of property was dedicated for public religious and charitable purposes. Needless to say, such relinquishment shall not be deemed to be transferred with an intent to defeat the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. Thus, the Taluk Land Board can be justified in deleting the above said lands from the account of the declarant. There is no illegality or irregularity in the above said deletion. Thus, this Revision Petition is devoid of merits and dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
(K.HARILAL, JUDGE)
okb.