SMT. EASWARI AMMAL v. TALUK LAND BOARD

P.R. RAMAN, J.= = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO.3407 OF 2001= = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2007.

O R D E RThis civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed bythe Taluk Land Board, Mannarkkad in C.C. 638/73 dated 27.9.2001. Thefirst petitioner is the first wife of the declarant Kanthaswamy Boyan. Thirdrespondent is his second wife. There was a ceiling case against Kanthaswamy and the Taluk Land Board, by its proceedings dated12.2.1987 found that Kanthaswamy is holding 30.97 acres of land inexcess of ceiling area. This was challenged before this Court in C.R.P.870/1987 and subsequently, before the apex court in SLP 7804/1989, butwithout success. An extent of 11.30 Acres situated in different surveynumbers in Agali Village were stated to be the properties set apart to thepetitioners under a partition deed of the year 1973 by document No. 541/73.Claiming the benefit under Act 5 of 1998, namely, Kerala Stay of EvictionProceedings Act, 1998, petitioners sought stay of the eviction proceedingsof their respective lands which were included in the account of thedeclarant as excess land. The Taluk Land Board, by the order impugned inthis revision, dismissed the application against which the present revision isfiled. CRP 3407/2001:2:

The petition was dismissed on the grounds that (i) petitioners arenot purchasers of the property as their claim itself is based on a partitiondeed, (ii) persons who have surrendered the land are not entitled to thebenefit of the Act and (iii) The Taluk Land Board has no jurisdiction to stayeviction proceedings as per the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act,1998.

Petitioners dispute the correctness of the reason that surrenderhas not taken place as stated in the order and therefore, this reason wouldhave been waived with by the authority in dismissing the application. It isnot necessary for the limited purpose of this case to consider as to whetherpetitioners were actually dispossessed or not.

Act 5/1998 is an enactment provided for stay of eviction of somecultivating tenants and small holders of lands purchased by them which aresubsequently found as excess land to be surrendered under the Kerala LandReforms Act, 1963. The preamble of the act also shows that numerousproceedings were pending before the Land Tribunals and Taluk LandBoards and other authorities wherein small holders and cultivating tenantswho purchased land for consideration were under threat of eviction ordispossession and in view of the persistent demand from the general publicto protect such small holders and cultivating tenants, Government thought CRP 3407/2001:3:in public interest to provide for temporary protection to those holders whoare purchasers of such land from eviction or dispossession, pendingenactment of a legislation to protect their right and interest on such land. Therefore, it could be seen that this is only a temporary enactment until theabove said land holders' rights are sought to be protected by a subsequentlegislation. Section 3 of the said act opens with a non obstante clausewhich reads as follows: " Notwithstanding anything to the contrarycontained in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963(1of 1964) or in any other law for the time being inforce or in any judgment, decree or order of anycourt or proceedings of the Land Tribunal, the Taluk Land Board, the State Land Board or anyother authority during the period of operation ofthis Act,- (a) no cultivating tenant or small holder whoholds or posseses any land as purchaser forconsideration, evidenced by registered document orotherwise, and which is subsequently found asexcess land to be surrendered under the provisionsof the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963( 1 of 1964),shall be evicted from, or dispossessed of, such land; and(b) all proceedings for such eviction ordispossession pending before any Court, Tribunal, Board or other authority referred to above, shallstand stayed. "

Therefore, it could be seen that if the lands in question were thesubject matter of any proceedings pending before the Taluk Land Board, CRP 3407/2001:4:notwithstanding any order passed by it, the benefit of the Act will beextended to such cases provided, the conditions contained in Clause 3(a) issatisfied. Therefore, the appropriate authority who could stay theproceedings is the very same authority where the matter is pending andtherefore, it is wrong to say that the Taluk Land Board has no authority orjurisdiction in the matter of granting of stay, provided, it is satisfied that theconditions under Clause 3(a) is satisfied. However, whether the presentcase satisfies the conditions under Clause 3(a) arises for consideration.

Admittedly, petitioners are claiming right over the land as per apartition deed executed as per Clause 3(a). The person who is entitled forthe benefit of this provision must be a cultivating tenant or a small holderwho possess the cultivating land as purchased for consideration. In so far asthe petitioners do not have claimed that they are purchasers forconsideration, but only claiming right under the partition, the claim wasrightly rejected by the Land Board. The Civil Revision Petition isaccordingly dismissed. P.R. RAMAN,(JUDGE)knc/- CRP 3407/2001:5:P.R. RAMAN, J.=============C.R.P. 3407/2001==============

O R D E R13.7.2007.