CRP No. 545 of 2007 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Kerala LandReforms Act, 1963 s. 85(9A)
Judgment
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -C.R.P No.545 of 2007- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of November, 2012
O R D E RThe above revision is filed from the order of the Taluk Land Board, Hosdurg dated 23.10.2001. A ceiling case relating to one Sri. Mangulam Shambhu Namboodiri, closed earlier, was reopened under Section 85(9A) of the Kerala LandReforms Act, 1963(hereinafter referred to as the “KLR Act”).The reopening was with respect to 49-66 acres of land comprised in various survey numbers of Madikkai village which stood excluded from the account of the statement giveron the ground that the said lands were in the possession oftenants. The case was reopened within the limitation period provided under the proviso to Section 85(9A).
Pursuant to the issuance of notice under Section 85(9A) the authorised officer submitted his report dated29.4.1995. It was the authorised officer's report that actually these lands were in the possession of various tenants and that there is absolutely no fraud or collusion between the statement giver and the tenants. Despite the above report, the CRP545/2007.: 2 :case was again referred to the authorised officer on 20.1.1999for physical verification of the lands and also to report on the improvements made therein. The authorised officer after physically inspecting the various lands, reported that the said lands were subsisting on tenancy covered by SM 1257/73 and that right of the property was purchased by one KallampallyIllam. The statement giver was the Power of Attorney Holderof the said Illam. It was only because of that the tenants furnished the name of the Power of Attorney Holder as landlord at the time of obtaining purchase certificate.
Again, the matter was referred to the authorised officer for furnishing certain particulars regarding the tenancies. The 3rd report filed on 13.9.2001, noticing tenancies in respect of all the survey numbers; reported that the tenants were in possession of the lands prior to 1.4.1964. Thetenancies of paddy fields, garden land etc., had been in the enjoyment of the tenants prior to 1.4.1964, who had made valuable improvements thereon. The Taluk Land Boardconsidering the three reports of the authorised officer, decided to close the proceedings and did not attempt to CRP545/2007.: 3 :reopen the case.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances and the reliance made on the three consistent reports of the Authorised Officer; this Court is of the opinion that the order of the Taluk Land Board refusing to reopen the ceiling case, impugned in the above revision, is not liable to be interfered with under Section 103 of the KLR Act. Civil Revision Petition is hence rejected. Sd/-(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)jma//true copy//P.A to Judge
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.