SUBHA DEVI .V Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner states that she is the absolute owner in the title and possession of property having an extent of 14 Ares and 16 Sq. Mtrs. devolved on her as per Exhibit P2 settlement deed executed in her favour by her mother in the year 1993. The above property is a portion of 95 cents of property assigned in favour of Sri. Sasidharan Pillai as per Exhibit P1 Land Assignment Certificate dated 13.11.1973 in SMP No.91/72. A portion of the afore property to the extent of 20 Ares and 23 Sq. Mtrs. was sold by the assignee to the mother of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the basic tax was being received by the respondents in the name of the petitioner as is evident from Exhibit P7 tax receipt. Her grievance is that though the property was assigned to her as early as in the year 1993, no other revenue certificates are being issued to her stating that I.P.No. 3/1100 (M.E) is still pending on the files of the District Court, Kollam.

(2.) The petitioner contends that I.P.No.3/1100 (M.E) was filed by a wealthy merchant by name Koya Kunju, who had extensive properties in the Chadayamangalam area as it stood then. The properties of the insolvent were handed over to the official receiver, District Court, Kollam, and subsequently, all the creditors were paid off and finally, the insolvency proceedings were annulled by the District Court by order dated 23.11.1960.

(3.) It is contended that after the coming into force of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, the property of Sri. Koya Kunju, came to be vested with the Government by virtue of Section 72 of the said Act, free of all encumbrances, created either by the landowner or the intermediaries. Various proceedings were initiated before the Land Tribunal, Chadayamangalam in respect of properties comprised in Sy. Nos. 624/1 and 664 of the Ittiva and Kottukal Village. All those cases were disposed of by the Land Tribunal and assignment certificates were issued in respect of the properties involved therein. It is contended that the property settled in favour of the petitioner is also a part of such properties.