Skip to content


Koroth Sooppi Haji Vs. the Taluk Land Board, Tellicherry and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P. No. 3090 of 1979-B
Judge
Reported inAIR1981Ker219
ActsKerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 - Sections 85(7); Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970 - Rule 12
AppellantKoroth Sooppi Haji
RespondentThe Taluk Land Board, Tellicherry and ors.
Appellant Advocate P.A. Mohammed, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateGovt. Pleader
DispositionRevision allowed
Excerpt:
- - 151/2. the taluk land board accepted this version and included these extents in the final order without amending the draft statement or issuing a fresh draft statement the procedure adopted by the taluk land board is clearly illegal, 3. the draft statement has to be served on persons interested in the land according to rule 12 of the kerala land reforms (ceiling) rules, and it has to be accompanied by a notice in form no......act 1 of 1964 (for short the 'act'). subsequently realising the defect of jurisdiction, the taluk land board issued a revised draft statement. in the revised draft statement sy, no. 151/2 was not included and only 51 cents in sy. no. 17/2a was included. when the revision-petitioner filed objection a re-verification report was called for. in that report the authorised officer stated that the revision-petitioner is in possession of 54 cents in sy. no. 17/2a as also 53 cents in sy. no. 151/2. the taluk land board accepted this version and included these extents in the final order without amending the draft statement or issuing a fresh draft statement the procedure adopted by the taluk land board is clearly illegal,3. the draft statement has to be served on persons interested in the land.....
Judgment:
ORDER

U.L. Bhat, J.

1. In the suo motu ceiling case against the revision petitioner, he has been directed to surrender 68 1/2 cents of excess land. This order is now challenged.

2. Originally a draft statement was issued without receiving the intimation under Section 85 (7) of the Kerala Act 1 of 1964 (for short the 'Act'). Subsequently realising the defect of jurisdiction, the Taluk Land Board issued a revised draft statement. In the revised draft statement Sy, No. 151/2 was not included and only 51 cents in Sy. No. 17/2A was included. When the revision-petitioner filed objection a re-verification report was called for. In that report the authorised officer stated that the revision-petitioner is in possession of 54 cents in Sy. No. 17/2A as also 53 cents in Sy. No. 151/2. The Taluk Land Board accepted this version and included these extents in the final order without amending the draft statement or issuing a fresh draft statement The procedure adopted by the Taluk Land Board is clearly illegal,

3. The draft statement has to be served on persons interested in the land according to Rule 12 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, and it has to be accompanied by a notice in Form No. 3. In Form No. 3 it is stated that if the re-ceipients of the notice and the draft statement have any objection to the Taluk Land Board determining the extent and identity of the lands to be surrendered on the basis of the particulars of the extent and identity specified in Part E of the draft statement, they may file objection and participate in the enquiry. In other words, a person, who receives a notice of the draft statement is called upon to raise contentions only with reference to the draft statement and nothing else. If the draft statement does not include a particular item of land, he is not expected to raise any contention with reference to it unless he wants to draw the attention of the Taluk Land Board to the omission of that particular item of land from the draft statement. It may be that in the course of conducting an enquiry in regard to objections raised by a party, the authorised officer may incidentally realise that the extent of land in a survey number shown in the draft statement is incorrect or that a survey number is wholly omitted and the party may also file objections to the report; but the rules and the notice do not require him to show cause why the land referred to in the authorised officer's report other than those lands shown in the draft statement should not be treated as land belonging to him for the purpose of the ceiling case. Even if a party has an opportunity to object to the report and adduce evidence in regard to the same, that will not enable the Taluk Land Board to hold him liable to account for the extent of land which is not included in the draft statement. When the authorised officer points out any errors or omissions in the draft statement, the Taluk Land Board cannot straightway include those items or their extents in the account of the party concerned and determine the extent of the land to be surrendered by him on that basis without either issuing a fresh draft statement or amending the draft statement already issued suitably. As long as the item of the land or the correct extent of the land reported by the authorised officer is not included in the draft statement, the party is not called upon to show cause why that item or such higher extent, as the case may be, should not be put in his account and a final order passed on that basis. Since the Taluk Land Board has not either amended the draft statement already issued or issued a fresh statement incorporating the new item or the higher extent, as the case may be, and has put in the revision petitioner's account the new items not shown in the draft statement and an extent higher than the one shown in the draft statement, the final order cannot stand. The objected item and the objected extent will have to be deleted from the final order. The case has to go back to the Taluk Land Board for working out the lands to be surrendered by the revision petitioner on that basis. It is, however, open to the Taluk Land Board, if so advised, to amend the draft statement or to issue a revised draft statement incorporating the new item and showing the higher extent in the concerned item and call for objections thereto and deal with the matter in accordance with law.

In the result, this revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above, but without costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //