The State of Kerala filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 16/12/2003 passed by the Taluk Land Board, Hosdurg, in TLB No.1886/1973. The said ceiling case was initiated against one Sukumaran and the Taluk Land Board had ordered to take possession of an extent of 2.03 Acres in R.S.No.448/1 of Belur Village. The land was taken possession by the Tahsildar on 26/11/1976. Later, the above case was re-opened under Sec.85(9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act to verify whether an extent of 16.14 and ½ Acres in various survey numbers of Belur, Ajanur, Balal, Malth Villages of Hosdurg Taluk are deleted from the account of the statement given by the declarant on the ground that these lands were in possession of various other persons, is correct. After hearing all the affected parties and perusing the records, the Taluk Land Board found that the verification report of the Authorised Officer is reliable and on that finding the earlier proceedings dated 26/11/1976 was confirmed. The legality and propriety of the findings by which the Taluk Land Board confirmed the earlier order is under challenge in this revision petition.
2. The learned Special Government Pleader advanced arguments challenging the findings in the impugned order. The learned Special Government Pleader submits that the verification report filed by the Authorised Officer, after re-opening of the case, is not reliable, as the same is not supported by sufficient documentary evidence. But the Taluk Land Board also did not verify the documents before confirming earlier order. It is also contended that the entire records pertaining to S.M.No.747/73 and O.A. No.5542/76 are not considered and the name of the landlord, the name of the applicant and the properties are entirely different from the report of the Authorised Officer.
3. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the Land Board has erroneously taken a decision or failed to consider any question of law.
4. Going by the report, it is seen that, after re-opening, the Authorised Officer had submitted a report and thereafter the said report was returned back for fresh enquiry, since, in certain cases, the names of the landlords differ from that of the statement. Therefore, the Special Deputy Tahsildar (LR) submitted his further enquiry report detailing the enquiry on each item of property. It is the case of the declarant that several items of properties which were subjected to further verification under the provisions of Sec.85(9A) of the KLR Act are in possession and enjoyment of different tenants even before the commencement of the Land Reforms Act. In the impugned order, the Land Board has narrated the enquiry report with respect to each item of property in different survey numbers. Almost all properties are excluded on the finding that those properties were found in possession of different tenants by virtue of the purchase certificate issued either under O.A. proceedings or S.M. proceedings.
5. An extent of 0.21 Acres in R.S.No.251/7 of Belur Village was excluded on the basis of the order passed in O.A. No.107/73 of the Land Board, Kanhangad; an extent of 0.23 Acres in R.S.No.241/8 of Belur Village was assigned as per O.A.No.4796/75; 0.70 Acres in R.S.No.448/1 of Belur Village were excluded as per O.A.No.4699/75; 0.30 Acres in R.S.No.238/3 of Belur Village were excluded as per S.M.No.3270/75; 3.25 Acres in R.S.No.448/1 of Belur Village was excluded by virtue of O.A.No.4700/75; 0.19 Acres in R.S.No.265/2 of Ajanur Village was excluded in view of document No.1974/58; an extent of 0.22 Acres in R.S.No.153/3 of Ajanur Village was excluded on the basis of Patta No.1831; 3.30 Acres in R.S.No.217/2 of Ajanur Village was excluded by virtue of deed No.377 and document No.26/60; an extent of 0.70 Acres in R.S.No.41/5 of Bella Village was excluded by S.M. No.2344/78; an extent of 0.84 Acres in R.S.No.85 of Balal Village was excluded by virtue of S.M.P.No.85/73; an extent of 0.96 Acres in R.S.No.78/2A of Balal Village was found in possession of the tenant by virtue of document No.662/66; and an extent of 4.86 Acres in R.S.No. 76 of Balal Village was found in possession of the tenant by virtue of document No.214/66 of S.R.O., Hosdurg.
6. Thus, each item of property is seen exempted after examining the documents by which tenants got right and possession over the property. I find that the Land Board has considered the verification report meticulously and arrived at a finding that the entire extent for which the ceiling case was re-opened is in the possession of tenants who have got fixity of tenure. On an evaluation of the findings, I find that there is no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. The Land Board has taken the decision correctly by confirming the earlier order dated 26/11/1976.
This revision petition is devoid of merits and dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
(K. HARILAL, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge