UDAYAVARMA RAJA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, claiming to be members of Ayancherri Kovilakam to which the property in question allegedly belonged challenged Ext.P2, order No.TLB(B) 1/2009 dated 30.03.2010 of the Taluk Land Board, Vadakara (for short, " the TLB") allegedly taking possession of the area mentioned therein. Initially that order was challenged in this Court by one Vijayakrishna Varma Raja in C.R.P.No.198 of 2010 and that revision was dismissed vide order dated September 13, 2010. Grievance aired therein was that none of other members of the Kovilakam were given notice of the proceedings by the TLB. This Court disposed of C.R.P. No.198 of 2010 observing that so far as petitioner therein was concerned, he was given notice and he was heard before the impugned order was passed and hence he has no reason to complain. Thereafter petitioners claiming to be members of the said Kovilakam filed Ext.P4, petition before the TLB claiming that they are interested in the land ordered to be surrendered and that the proceedings are initiated and order was passed without notice to them. They therefore prayed that Ext.P2, order passed by the TLB determining extent of land to be surrendered without hearing them may be set aside. The prayer in this petition is to direct respondent No.2 to pass orders on Ext.P4, petition and in the meantime to keep the proceedings for recovery of possession of property in abeyance.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Learned Senior Government Pleader submits that in the light of decision of the Supreme Court in Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania (2010 (3) KLT 986) this Court may not issue direction to the TLB to keep in abeyance its proceedings until Ext.P4, application is disposed of.

(3.) It appears that there is dispute between the parties whether possession of the property has been taken or not. When C.R.P.No.198 of 2010 was being disposed of it was submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents that possession of property was taken in April, 2010. This fact is disputed by the learned counsel for petitioners. I am not however going into that controversy in this proceeding.