Chinnammal Goundachi v. State — 1996 DIGILAW 233 (KER)

Judgment :- Ramachandran, J. These revisions arise from the order of the Taluk Land Board, Chittur dated. 15.4.1988 in S.M. 243 of 1977. 2. The revision petitioners in these three revisions were parties to S.M. 243 of 1977 before the Taluk Land Board of Chittur. It was a suo motu proceedings taken by the Taluk Land Board of Chittur against one Muthuswamy Gounder stating that he had excess lands and that he should surrender the properties in excess of the ceiling area. On 16.11.1974, the ceiling proceedings were dropped. On 27.8.1971, Muthuswamy Gounder died and his wife was treated as assessee. Later on verification by the Special Tahsildar a draft statement of the excess land was prepared. On 3.3.1978, the Taluk Land Board decided to include 72,91 acres more over and above 29.50 acres shown in the draft statement in view of the report of the Special Tahsildar. Thus, on 3.3.1978, a revised statement was prepared. It was directed that the tenants reported to he in the possession of portions of the area should be impleaded. The first respondent in the proceedings was the wife of Muthuswarny Gounder. The second respondent was Chenniappa Gounder. Respondents 3 to 9 were the alleged tenants. One Ramaswamy Pillai got: himself impleaded as 10th respondent. Muthuswarny Gounder was governed by Hindu law. He had two sons and two daughters. The sons were Kumaravel and Balasubramaniam. There was a partition decree in O.S. No. 243 of 1963 of the Sub Court of Coimbatore. In the year 1969, Muthuswarny Gounder and his two sons had executed three gift deeds. Document No. 1519 of 1969 was in favour of his wife, who is the revision petitioner in C.R. P. No. 2164 of 1989. The other gift deeds were in favour of his daughters by name Velathal and Bhagyalakshmi. The remaining properties alone were partitioned by himself and his two sons in the year 1969. A, B and C Schedule properties were allotted to each sharer. It was mentioned that the properties shown in the gift deeds were outstanding in the possession of tenants. Purchase certificates were obtained by mem from the Land Tribunal. Tenancies were mentioned in the tax assessment proceedings. They produced levy notices also. Respondents 1 to 10 therein contended that there was no property in excess to be surrendered. It was mentioned that the properties shown in the gift deeds were outstanding in the possession of tenants. Purchase certificates were obtained by mem from the Land Tribunal. Tenancies were mentioned in the tax assessment proceedings. They produced levy notices also. Respondents 1 to 10 therein contended that there was no property in excess to be surrendered. The partition deed, there gift deeds, the assessment orders in which rent was shown as income from 1961 onwards and building tax receipts and levy notices were produced before the Taluk Land Board. The second respondent contended that lie was cultivating 12.18 acres as alessee. It was leased originally to Ramaswamy Gounder from Muthuswarny Gounder and Chenniappa Gounder got assignment of his own right. In O.A. Nos.701 and 702 of 1972 of Chittur Land Tribunal Jenm right was purchased and certificates obtained. The second respondent had produced 34 documents like levy notices, levy receipts, notices from Taluk Supply Officer, Land cess notices from Agricultural Income Tax Officer and Labour Officer and two purchase certificates. 3.The third respondent contended that he was in possession of 14.97 acres as leased from Muthuswamy Gounder in the year 1959 on an annual rent of 245 paras of paddy. Patta was granted in O. A. Nos. 749,750 and 751 of 1972. He contended that there was a Kudikidappu in the property. 32 documents were produced by him including levy and land cess receipts. 4. The 4th respondent contended possession of 13.54 acres. According to him his father took the properties on leasehold right from Muthuswamy Gounder stipulating to pay annual rent of 300 paras of paddy. On the death of his father, the 4th respondent claimed tenancy right. He obtained purchase certificates in O.A. 748 of 1972. He produced the patta in O.A. No. 748 of 1972, notices and receipts, totalling 13 documents. 5. The 5th respondent contended that he had a lease of 13.68 acres from Muthuswamy Gounder and that he was in possession of it. In the proceedings in C.C. No: 1022 of 1973, it was found that he had no excess area. The order of the Taluk Land Board, five tax receipts, eight levy notices, notice from Labour Officer, demand notice from Taluk Office and rent receipts were produced by him before the Land Board. 6. According to the 6th respondent, he contended possession of 9.01 acres. The order of the Taluk Land Board, five tax receipts, eight levy notices, notice from Labour Officer, demand notice from Taluk Office and rent receipts were produced by him before the Land Board. 6. According to the 6th respondent, he contended possession of 9.01 acres. According to him, his father had leasehold right under Muthuswamy Gounder stipulating to pay an annual rent of 745 paras of paddy. Later in the year 1968 there was a partition and 6th respondent got the property allotted to his share. Thus, as cultivating tenant he got purchase certificate from Chittur Land Tribunal. A. Nos. 745,746 and 747 of 1972. He produced 22 documents before the Land Board consisting of 3 levy notices; two levy orders and notice from Agricultural Income-Tax Office. 7. The 7th respondent contented before the Taluk Land Board that he was in possession of 5.99 acres as a tenant under Muthuswamy Gounder. He obtained purchase certificate in O. A. Nos. 743 and 744 of 1972. He produced seven levy notices, two levy orders, five levy receipts, land tax receipts, rent receipts from the year 1959 and certificate of purchase. 8. The contention of the 8th respondent was that he was in possession of 7.76 acres as a tenant under Muthuswamy Gounder from the year 1959 and that he was liable to pay 745 paras of paddy as annual rent. According to him, there was a partition and the property was allotted to his share. Later he obtained purchase certificate in O.A. No. 740 of 1972. He produced 25 documents before the Land Board consisting of levy ' notices, levy exemption orders, rent receipts from 1959 onwards, etc. Thus, he claimed exemption of his property. 9. The 9th respondent contended that in the year 1959 Muthuswamy Gounder leased 10.85 acres to him stipulating to pay 400 paras of paddy per year, as annual rent. There was partition between himself and his sons. Purchase certificates were obtained in O.A. Nos. 738 and 739 of 1972. He produced 24 documents before the Land Board consisting of rent receipts from the year 1959 onwards, levy notices, etc. 10. the tenth respondent contended that he was in possession of 2.59 acres in Sy. No. 1106 of Vadakarapathy Village and 2.74 acres in Sy. No. 1104 of the same Village, totalling 5.33 acres. According to him, he got lease from Muthuswamy Gounder. 10. the tenth respondent contended that he was in possession of 2.59 acres in Sy. No. 1106 of Vadakarapathy Village and 2.74 acres in Sy. No. 1104 of the same Village, totalling 5.33 acres. According to him, he got lease from Muthuswamy Gounder. But no documents were produced by him. 11. On 4.6.1979, the Taluk Land Board passed orders holding that the assessees as on 1.1.1970 were Mutliuswamy Gounder, his wife and two minor daughters. It was formed that the assessees were in possession of 116.90 acres of land. The tenants and others were held to be in possession of 99.52 acres, out of which 94.01 acres was held by tenants and 5.51 acres was held by one Kumaravel as on 1.1.1970. The balance was found as 17.38 acres. The Taluk Land Board gave exemption under S.81 of the Act for 1.45 acres. Thus, 3.93 acres was found as excess land to be surrendered. 12. That order of the Taluk Land Board was challenged before thi s Court in C.R.P. No. 3056 of 1979 and on 4.8.1981, the revision was allowed and the Taluk Land Board was directed to prepare a fresh draft statement in the absence of S.85(7) intimation. Thereafter the Taluk Land Board obtained sanction from the State Land Board and issued notices on fresh draft assessment to the legal representatives of Muthuswamy Gounder, 13. After remand notices were issued to respondents 11 to 29 showing them as interested parties. Respondent No. 19 was the major son of Mulhuswamy Gounder. 20th respondent was Balasubramaniam. The daughters were shown as respondents 21 and 22. In the mean while the 8th respondent died. Respondents 1 to 7,9 and 10 adopted the statement filed by 8th respondent on 22.6.1978. Respondents 11 to 18 filed their statements on 18.3.1985. Respondents 19 to 22 tiled their statements on 29.7.1985 and respondents 23 to 29 filed their statements on the same date. 14. Respondents 11 and 12 contended that they were in possession of 2.66 acres and 5.88 acres respectively. According to them, they purchased the right of Chennimala Gounder and Myleswamy Gounder as per document Nos. 1254 and 1255 of 1981. According to them, they got the property from the original tenants who were respondents 5 and 6. Thus, they are the assignees of respondents 5 and 6. Respondents 13 and 14 claimed 2.95 acres and 2.44 acres respectively as per document Nos. 1254 and 1255 of 1981. According to them, they got the property from the original tenants who were respondents 5 and 6. Thus, they are the assignees of respondents 5 and 6. Respondents 13 and 14 claimed 2.95 acres and 2.44 acres respectively as per document Nos. Ill and 112 of 1982 of Chittur Sub Registry. They claimed right from Nanjappa Gounder, who was the alleged lessee under Muthuswamy Gounder. 15th Respondent claimed 4 acres as per documents No. 816 of 1981 and as per an agreement obtained from Ramaswamy Pillai, who was the 10th respondent. 16th respondent claimed 1.99 acres as per a sale deed and 17th respondent claimed 5.51 acres as per another sale deed obtained from the third respondent who claims as a lessee under Muthuswamy Gounder. 18th respondent claimed 2.47 acres stating that he got assignment from one Appukuttan, who was the purchaser of the tenancy, right from Pazhani Gounder, who in turn had purchased the right from the 5th respondent. 15. respondents 19 to 22 claimed that possession was with tenants and they supported the case of the first respondent. According to them, respondents 19 and 20 had no land in excess of the ceiling area and that Respondents 21 and 22 had no possession of any land. 16. Respondent No. 23 contended that he purchased tenancy from the third respondent in the year 1984 as per the registered document concerning 3.14 acres. According to him, his assignor was a lessee under Muthuswamy Gounder. Respondent 24 claimed exclusion of 3.16 acres as assignee of the right of Appukullw on the basis of the sale deed with No. 1067 of 1981 Respondents 25 and 26 claimed 3.82 acres on the basis of a sale deed from Pazhani Gounder who purchased the right of the 6th respondent 17. Even though Respondent No. 27 claimed possession of a portion of the property, no documents were produced by him. Respondent No. 28 claimed one acre as per sale deed No. 747 of 1914 f ram Nanjapps Consider, Respondent No. 29 claimed one acre and 40 cents as per sale deed No. 1644 of 1980 from the original respondents. 18. The Taluk Land Board found that as on 1,1.1970,102.41 acres were in actual possession. Exemption was given for 1 .45 acres. The ceiling area was fixed as 12 acres. Thus, it was directed that 88.96 acres should be surrendered. 18. The Taluk Land Board found that as on 1,1.1970,102.41 acres were in actual possession. Exemption was given for 1 .45 acres. The ceiling area was fixed as 12 acres. Thus, it was directed that 88.96 acres should be surrendered. That order is under challenge in these revisions. 19. The revision petitioners in CRP no 2164 of 1989 was part No.1 in S.M 243 of 1977 and she was the wife of muthuswamy Gounder the revision petitioners in C.R.P No 2365 of 1989 were parties 2, 4, 7, 9 and 10 in S.M 243 of 1977. They conended tendendency right in the property. The revision petitioners in CRP no 2191 of 1989 claimed the independent right in the property as bonifide purchaser for the valuable consideration of the portions of the land held bt the tenent under muthuswamy Gounder 20. The common case of the revision petitioners is that the Taluk Land Board did not hear the parties, did not consider the documents and did not consider the contentions raised by each of the parties. They have also a case that the report of the Sub Collector relied on by the Taluk Land Board cannot be accepted as copies were not given to the parties and that the Sub Collector was incompetent to give any such report. I am of the view that there is merit in the contentions raised by the petitioners. The Taluk Land Board did not consider the various contentions raised by the parties and did not consider the documents produced by the parties. The Taluk Land Board relied on a report of the Sub Collector who was not an authorised officer. This curious that the Taluk Land Board relied on that report of which copies were not given to the parties. Thus, there was violation of the principles of natural justice. The decision reported in G. Nageswara Rao M.A.P.S.R.T. Corpn. (AIR 1959 SC 308) held that if an authority is called upon to decide respective rights of contesting parties, ordinarily there will be a duty on the part of the said authority to act judicially. This decision was followed in the later decision reported in Amir Singh v. Government of India (MR 1965 Punjab 84). (AIR 1959 SC 308) held that if an authority is called upon to decide respective rights of contesting parties, ordinarily there will be a duty on the part of the said authority to act judicially. This decision was followed in the later decision reported in Amir Singh v. Government of India (MR 1965 Punjab 84). That decision was under the Sea Customs Act and it was held that when the Collector heard the matter and final decision was given by his successor without giving any hearing to the appellant, the principles of natural justice is violated and there was no judicial approach. This Court had laid down in the decision reported in Bhattathiripad v. Tahsildar (1994 (1) KLT 790) that if one officer heard the arguments his successor in office cannot pass the order without rehearing as there will be violation of the principles of natural justice. The same view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Union of India v. Andrew (1996 (1) KLT 133). There also the successor in officer passed order without rehearing the parties on the ground that arguments were already addressed before his predecessor in office. Thus, the order of the Taluk Land Board is improper and irregular. 21. Even though certificates of purchase were produced by the parties, obtained by them under S.72Kof the Kerala Land Reforms Act, they were not. Considered by the Taluk Land Board in these cases. The decision reported in Mathew v. Taluk. Land Board (1979 KLT 601) was a decision rendered by the Apex Court of this country and there it was held that the Taluk Land Board must make an order under S.85(5) after taking into consideration the conclusive evidentiary value of the certificates of purchase given. by the Land Tribunal under S.72K of the Act. The decision reported in Lakshmi Bai v. Taluk Land Board (1979 KLT 332) supported this view and held that the evidentiary value of certificate of purchase could not be disregarded except where it was inaccurate on its face or obtained by fraud. In the present case, the certificates of purchase produced by the parties were not even considered by the Taluk Land Board. The Taluk Land Board ought to have considered as to whether any value can be given to the certificates of purchase produced by the parties. In the present case, the certificates of purchase produced by the parties were not even considered by the Taluk Land Board. The Taluk Land Board ought to have considered as to whether any value can be given to the certificates of purchase produced by the parties. It was open to the Taluk Land Bord to accept them or to reject them giving necessary reasons. 22. In these cases, the Taluk Land Board unfortunately did not act in accordance with R.13 of the Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules. Rule 13 lays down the procedure regarding enquiry to determine extent and identity of the ceiling area and excess land. Here it is clearly laid down that the Land Board should consider the objections, if any, and the oral and documentary evidence let in and hear the parties who appeared before the Taluk Land Board. It was only after complying this formality the order could be passed determining the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered. There is a proviso to Rule 13 which states that where the Taluk Land Board intends to rely on the particulars obtained by any such further verification, ascertainment or investigation, no such order shall be passed without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to such of those parties whose interests are likely to be affected if such particulars are replied upon. In the present case the Taluk Land Board relied on the report of the Sub Collector, but no opportunity was given to the parties for hearing on that report. The Land Board should not act arbitrarily and no impression should be given that the case of the parties was not properly considered by the Taluk Land Board before passing the order. Thus it is the duty of the Taluk Land Board to hear the parties and consider the evidence produced before it before passing any order. Even in a case an authorised officer files a report on any matter, notice has to be given of that report to the person concerned and enquire about such information received from the authorised officer as provided in Rule 140 of the Kerala Tenancy Rules. The manner in which the authorised officer should collect the information is laid down in Section 105 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The manner in which the authorised officer should collect the information is laid down in Section 105 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Thus when the authorised officer obtains any information, reasonable opportunity should be given for making representation and to adduce evidence, if any, in respect of such information and the authorised officer should consider any such representation and evidence and pass such orders as he deems fit. In the present case the report of the Sub Collector was not obtained as per this Section. Thus it was illegal on the part of the Taluk Land Board to rely on the report of the Sub Collector. If the Taluk Land Board thinks fit to rely on the report of the Sub Collector, opportunity should be given to hear the parties on that report. 23. Considering the facts and circumstances in these cases I do not think that the order passed by the Taluk Land Board is valid in law. Thus it is liable to be set aside. For the above reasons these revisions are allowed and the order of the Taluk Land Board of Chittur in S.M. 243 of 1977 dated 15-4-1988 is set aside. The Taluk Land Board is directed to reconsider the matter after hearing the parties concerned and in the light of the observations made in this order. The revision petitioners are to appear before the Taluk Land Board of Chittur on 17-7-1996. The parties are to bear their costs. Send copy of this order with the records of the Land Board immediately to the Taluk Land Board, Chittur.