Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 348 (KER)

State of Kerala v. Thamarassery Ayyappunni

2013-04-08

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

body2013
Judgment 1. Revision is by the State challenging the order of the Taluk Land Board in a ceiling proceeding under section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, for short the Act. 2. Short facts necessary for disposal of this revision can be summed up thus:-Ceiling proceedings were commenced against the first respondent who is now no more, hereinafter referred to as the declarant, by the Taluk Land Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board. Pursuant to the report filed by authorized officer and conducting enquiry declarant was directed to surrender 31.76 acres of land as excess area possessed by him. That order was challenged by the declarant in revision. Setting aside the order of the Board this court directed for redetermination of the excess land afresh. Pursuant to such remission, the Board passed fresh orders determining the excess land to be surrendered as 20.66 acres by the declarant. He surrendered an extent of 13.39 acres, and the balance area of 7.27 acres remained to be surrendered in the excess area determined. As against the order of the Board, declarant filed a revision. Again setting aside the order of the Board case was remanded. Revised orders were passed by the Board on such remission fixing the excess land as 20.13 acres, and balance area to be surrendered as 6.74 acres. That order challenged in revision by declarant was dismissed by this court. The declarant continued further challenge seeking Special Leave to prefer an appeal against the Orders passed in revision by this court. Apex Court declined leave to appeal, after allowing impleadment of the legal heirs of the declarant, who, then, had passed away. 3. One of the legal heirs of declarant had moved an application under section 85(8) of the Act, claiming tenancy in respect of one of the items in the land account of the declarant, but, long after passing of orders by Board in the ceiling proceedings. She claimed tenancy over 7.50 acres of land, one of the items covered in the ceiling proceedings with a case that the above land was included in the ceiling proceedings initiated against her, in which she was ordered to surrender 5.60 acres as excess land. She claimed tenancy over 7.50 acres of land, one of the items covered in the ceiling proceedings with a case that the above land was included in the ceiling proceedings initiated against her, in which she was ordered to surrender 5.60 acres as excess land. The above said 7.50acres in survey No.205 was not liable to be included in the land account of the declarant and thus the order passed directing the declarant to surrender 6.74 acres of land, but, in some other survey numbers cannot be given effect to and liable to be revoked was her case. 4. Another legal heir of the declarant moved another application under Rule 136A of the Kerala Land Reforms Tenancy Rules before the Board contending that one of the items shown included in the land account of declarant in the ceiling proceedings, an extent of 22.50 acres in survey No.205 of Kavannur Village, should not have been included in the ceiling proceedings. An area of 5.60 acres of the above land was included in the ceiling proceedings taken against one of the children of declarant and therefore it has to be deleted from the land account of the declarant was his case. He sought for in his application deletion of the entire 22.50 acres from the land account of the declarant. 5. The above two applications filed by two legal heirs of the declarant were entertained by the Board, and impugned order was passed allowing them. Redetermining the land account of declarant, accepting the case of the above applicants, two legal heirs of declarant, the Board passed the impugned order for reconveying 6.42 acres of land already taken possession from the declarant as excess area. That order is challenged by the State in this revision as patently illegal and unsustainable. 6. I heard learned Special Government pleader and also learned counsel appearing for respondents. I have also perused the records called for from the Land Board. 7. The order passed by the Taluk Land Board is patently irregular, illegal and unsustainable. Excess area of the declarant was determined by the Board in the ceiling proceedings, and, the challenges raised thereto in revision before this court having been turned down by this court it has become final and conclusive. 7. The order passed by the Taluk Land Board is patently irregular, illegal and unsustainable. Excess area of the declarant was determined by the Board in the ceiling proceedings, and, the challenges raised thereto in revision before this court having been turned down by this court it has become final and conclusive. Special Leave Petition filed to challenge the orders passed by this court, in appeal, was declined to be entertained by the Apex Court after permitting impleadment of legal heirs of the declarant who, then, had passed away, in that petition. So much so, when the excess area of declarant to be surrendered has been determined in the ceiling proceedings and it has become final, the Board is incompetent to entertain any application from the legal heirs of declarant to reopen such proceedings. Further more, records of the case would show while the two applications moved by two legal heirs of the declarant were pending a revision was filed before this court as C.R.P.832/1993 by all legal heirs of declarant and that revision was disposed by order dated 28.7.1997 recording the submission made on behalf of the revision petitioner,legal heirs of declarant, that they are prepared to surrender the excess area determined subject to orders of Apex Court. However, it is seen, that long before the disposal of that revision the Special Leave Petition preferred by declarant in which legal heirs were subsequently impleaded on his death stood dismissed by order dated 7.9.1995. Further more Rule 136A enables the Board only to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in its order or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. That Rule does not enable the Board to reopen its previous order in the ceiling proceedings fixing the excess area to be surrendered by the declarant. When the order of Board was subjected to a revision before this court and orders have been passed by this court negativing the challenges raised by the declarant and his legal heirs, needless to point out the Board is denuded of any power to interfere with such orders passed by this court. The applications moved by two legal heirs of the declarant which were considered by the Board were not at all entertainable, and the order passed on such applications is illegal. 8. The applications moved by two legal heirs of the declarant which were considered by the Board were not at all entertainable, and the order passed on such applications is illegal. 8. Order passed by the Board allowing the applications of legal heirs of declarant with direction to reconvey the land surrendered is set aside. Applications of the two legal heirs of declarant shall stand rejected. The Board shall take effective steps for taking over possession of the balance area in the excess land of declarant determined in the ceiling proceedings. Revision is allowed, with the above direction.