C.R.P. No. 526/2007 filed by the District Collector and another in relation to the same subject matter was disposed of as follows:-
“In the order the Land Board has considered the question and held that if the 1960 partition deed is considered, the statement giver has no right over the property and Shri. Vishnu Bhat, S/o. Venkateshwara Bhat who is the father of the claimant-petitioner owns the said property and that Shri. Vishnu Bhat was not having any lind in excess of the ceiling limit under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It was also held that the claim petitioners are also paying land tax from 1969-70 onwards. So, by virtue of this finding it would go to show that the declarant did not have any right over the property as on 1.1.70 and as per the document of 1960 which, even according to the State Government under Ground E is a valid document, was set apart to the share of Shri. Vishnu Bhat and the parties are claiming only under Shri. Vishnu Bhat and therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration for fixing the ceiling limits of the statement giver.”
C.R.P. No. 1020 of 2007 2 2. I have no reason to take a different view in this Civil Revision Petition also. The claimants have been in possession for long and have also been paying basic tax. I do not find any error of law in the order impugned warranting interference in the Civil Revision Petition.
The Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed.
V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE DCS