The State of Kerala filed this revision petition, challenging the order dtd. 16-3-2010 passed by the Taluk Land Board in CR-196/73. The respondent herein is the declarant against whom the proceedings under Section 85 (5) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act had been initiated. By virtue of the order dtd. 29-12-1994, the Taluk Land Board dropped proceedings against the declarant on the ground that there was no excess land in the account of the declarant. Thereafter, in pursuance of the direction issued by the Taluk Land Board, the above ceiling case has been re-opened, invoking power under Section 85(9) of the Land Reforms Act. By virtue of the impugned order, the Taluk Land Board decided to retain the earlier order of the Taluk Land Board dtd. 29-12-1994 and held that the earlier order stands final. In the impugned order also, it is stated that the declarant agreed to surrender 2.83 acres of land in Sy. No.258/1 and 18.99 acres of land in Sy. No.54/1 of Kannamangalam Village. Thus, the earlier order was retained, subject to the surrender of property voluntarily agreed by the declarant. The legality and propriety of this order are under challenge in this Revision Petition.
2. The learned Special Government Pleader advanced arguments challenging the exemption granted to the declarant mainly on three accounts, ie., 3 to 5. The sum and substance of the arguments is that deletions were granted without proper evidence. According to the Special Government Pleader, the exemption of 0.40 acres in Re- Sy.No.131/2,3 of Kannamangalam Village, 125 acres in Re- Sy.No.264/6 of Peruvallur Village, 3.63 acres in Re- Sy.No.28/2 of Kannamangalam Village, was given without proper evidence.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent advanced arguments to justify the order under challenge.
According to the respondent, the earlier ceiling case was re-opened and the order was passed after a period of 7 years provided under Section 85(9) of the KLR Act.
4. Heard Both sides. In view of the submissions at the Bar, the only questions to be considered are, :-
(1) Whether the re-opening of the case under Section 85(9) of the KLR Act is barred by limitation? and
(2) Whether the exemption given to the petitioner for the above said three items are proper and justifiable?
5. As regards the first question, going by the impugned order itself, it is seen that the Taluk Land Board in its order has observed that no notice was served on the declarant or wife within a period of 7 years. The served copy of the notice shows that it was served by the Village Officer, Kondotty. But, the declarant has been residing in Nediyirippu Village. The signature on the served copy of the notice would show that the same was not signed by the declarant. The Taluk Land Board itself further found that the Taluk Land Board should have ensured proper service of notice. Obviously, there is no clinching evidence to show that the case was re-opened within 7 years. But, it is seen that the Taluk Land Board has not made further enquiry on that question, in view of the voluntary surrender of 2.83 acres of land in Re-Sy.No.258/1C and 18.99 acres of land in Re-Sy. No.54/1 of Kannamangalam Village, made by the declarant. The Taluk Land Board further decided to retain its order dated 29-12-1994.
6. As regards the exemption granted to 2.83 acres of property in Re-Sy. No.258/1C, it is seen that the said property is in occupation of Harijans as part of an approved Harijan Colony. As regards 18.99 acres in Re-Sy.No.54/2 of Kannamangalam Village, it is seen that the said property is in possession of tenants who have obtained purchase certificate for the lands in their possession. Coming to 0.40 acre of land in Re-Sy.No.131/2,3 of Kannamangalam Village, it is seen that the said property is a business complex.
7. In view of the above findings, it cannot be held that the Taluk Land Board has passed the impugned order without any reason.
8. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order under challenge. It appears that the impugned order has been passed in view of the voluntary surrender made by the declarant. There is no clinching evidence to show that the case was re-opened under Section 85(9) of the Act within 7 years. In the above view also, I find that there is no sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Section 103 of the KLR Act. This Revision Petition is devoid of merits and dismissed accordingly.
okb.
Sd/-
(K.HARILAL, JUDGE)