The State of Kerala filed this revision petition challenging the order passed by the Taluk Land Board, Mananthavady in TLB No.287/1973, under Sec.85 (9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act'). A ceiling return under Sec.85 (A) of the Act had been filed by the declarant, Sri.Narayanan Nair and he was ordered to surrender 20.04 acres of land as surplus land. Though, he had filed C.R.P No.3327 of 1977 challenging the said order, this Court confirmed the order passed by the Taluk Land Board and permitted the declarant to file option regarding lands to be surrendered. Thereafter, the Taluk Land Board on 11/11/1981 issued revised orders in this case. Subsequently, the Taluk Land Board re-opened the above ceiling case under Sec.85(9A) of the Act, on the ground that, an extent of 0.31 acres in R.S.No.85/2A of Kunnamangalam Desom was not accounted in DS issued on 07/05/1976 and further proceedings of the Taluk Land Board. After conducting due enquiry through authorised officer as provided under Sec.105 of the Act, the Taluk Land Board decided to drop all further actions confirming the earlier order. The legality and propriety of this order is under challenge in this revision petition.
2. The learned Govt. Pleader advanced arguments challenging the exemption granted to 0.31 acres of coffee plantation. According to the learned counsel, the exemption was granted only on the basis of report of the authorised officer. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent advanced arguments to justify the exemption given to the respondent.
3. Going by the impugned order, it is seen that, the authorised officer, after making due enquiry under Sec.105 of the Act, filed a report stating that the said 0.31 acres in R.S.No.85/2A is in the possession of the declarant. In the said property, there are coffee plants aged over 40 years.
In my view, nothing wrong in relying on the report of the authorised officer who conducted an enquiry under Sec. 105 of the Act unless there is some material contrary to the said report or the report is found vitiated by malafides. In the instance case, nothing on record to discredit the report of the authorised officer. Therefore, correctness of the report cannot be challenged and the same can be relied on for granting exemption. This Court, in Paily Thommen v. Thommen Thommen (1984 KLT SN 34) held that :
"Report of Revenue Inspector forms part of the record and can be used as evidence without examining him".
In the above view, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order under challenge. This revision petition is devoid of merits and dismissed accordingly.
Stu //True copy// P.A to Judge K.HARILAL, JUDGE.