JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the son of one Mr. Paily, who is now no more. It appears that the petitioner filed a return under the ceiling provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act in respect of land bequeathed by his father to him, but including the land owned by his father also as part of the return. That return was accepted and further proceedings were dropped as per Ext. P1 order dated 28/6/1976 of the Taluk Land Board, North Wyanad. Subsequently, Taluk Land Board, Mananthavady, by Ext. P2 order dated 29/12/1998, re-considered the matter and again dropped further proceedings Still again, by Ext. P3 order dated 29/6/1999, the Taluk Land Board, Mananthavady has considered the return filed by the petitioner and dropped proceedings against the petitioner and his father. But, subsequently, again, proceedings were initiated by the Taluk Land Board, Mananthavady and Ext. P5 order was passed directing to surrender 2.65 acres. Ext. P5 proceeds on the basis that the return ought to have been filed by Mr. Paily, the father of the petitioner, and he had not filed any such return. Therefore, proceedings were initiated under S.85(7) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It was found that Mr. Paily owned 25.25 acres, out of which he gifted 13.50 acres to his major son, the petitioner, as per gift deed dated 27/9/1971. By Ext. P5, it was held that the gift is valid only to the extent of 7.5 acres and therefore after giving allowance for other areas, Mr. Paily was liable to surrender 2.65 acres. That order is under challenge before me. The petitioner's contention is that after dropping the proceedings under the ceiling provisions thrice, the Taluk Land Board cannot re-open the ceiling case and direct surrender of 2.65 acres.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, wherein Ext. P5 order is sought to be justified under S.85(9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. But the learned Government Pleader would contend that the first three orders were mistakenly passed in so far as the property is belonging to Mr. Paily and not to his son Joseph. Therefore, the return should have been filed by Mr. Paily and he did not file the return as provided under S.85(2). The Land Board has directed initiation of proceedings under S.85(7), which only has been done by Ext. P5, is the contention of the learned Government Pleader.