STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADERS SMT.SUSHEELA.R.BHATT (SPL.) AND SRI.P.S.ABDUL KAREEM v. C.VENUGOPALAN NAIR
Case at a glance
- Bench
- K VINOD CHANDRAN
Provisions considered
Judgment
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.1228 OF 2005--------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2012.
O R D E R The above revision has been filed by the State challenging the order of the Taluk Land Board, Hosdurg dated 10-02-2004.The respondent herein had filed the statement, with respect to the lands held by him, under the provisions of the Kerala LandReforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The TalukLand Board in the proceedings dated 19-08-1976 dropped further action on the ground that the petitioner is not in possession of lands in excess of the ceiling area prescribed under the Act. 2. Subsequently, the matter was re-opened under Section85(9A) of the Act, to verify, whether an extent of 43.24 ¼ acres in various survey numbers in Maloth, Udma and Panathady Villagesof Hosdurg Taluk were in fact in the possession of genuine tenants or not. It is seen from the order that notice was issued to the Statement Giver and the case was also referred to the Authorized C.R.P.No.1228 OF 2005 2Officer/Special Deputy Tahsildar for enquiry and report.
It is not clear as to when the notice was issued. It is to be noticed that Section 85 (9A) specifically provides that no re-opening shall be attempted by the Taluk Land Board, after expiry of 3 years from the date of coming into force of the Kerala Land Reforms(Amendment) Act, 1989. The Authorized Officer, to whom, the case was referred, along with the notice to the Statement Giver, has filed a report N.Dis.24/2001 dated 01-02-2002. The date of coming into force of the amendment Act was 30-05-1985 and it is evident that the re-opening was attempted much later in the year 2000.However, since the records are not available, the Court is incapacitated to go in to the aspect of limitation. 3. Be that as it may, the impugned order considers the issue elaborately and arrives at a finding that the earlier order dated19-08-1976 is perfectly in order. Each of the items of property, which were the subject matter of re-opening was considered C.R.P.No.1228 OF 2005 3separately in the order.
The Authorized Officer's report has also been relied upon. It was found that each of the items, the possession of which was doubted, had been in the possession oftenants long before the Act came into force. It was on the said findings on facts that the Taluk Land Board came to the conclusion that the earlier order did not warrant any interference. It is pertinent that the Authorized Officer had also reported that there is no fraud or collusion, vitiating the earlier order. In such circumstance, considering the scope of Section 103 of the Kerala Land ReformsAct, this Court is of the opinion that the order of the Land Tribunalis not liable to be interfered with. The Civil Revision Petitionhence stands rejected. K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.amk/31-10-12
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.