MEHABOOB BEEVI Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter relates to the area to be surrendered as being beyond the ceiling limit allotted to the family of one K.V.S. Seethikoya Thangal. On 12.7.1976 the Taluk Land Board, Petinthalmanna passed an order finding that an area of 33.56 acres was liable to be surrendered. The declarant filed C.R.P. No. 3402/76 challenging the said finding. There was also C.R.P. No. 3405/76 filed by two claimants. On 29.3.1977 the C.R.Ps. were allowed and the matter remanded. It was directed that the scope of the partition of 1972 by document No. 2629 of the Sub Registry, Perinthalmanna should also be considered. On 27.9.1980 the Taluk Land Board passed fresh orders fixing the area to be surrendered as 21 acres 16.5 cents; that is, deleting an area of 12 acres and 39.5 cents from the area that was fixed as liable to be surrendered in the earlier order of 12.7.1976. C.R.P. 2319/81 was then filed alleging that the said fixation of area to be surrendered was done without necessary hearing. On 25.10.1985 this Court set aside the order of the Taluk Land Board dated 27.9.1980 and remanded the matter with directions. On 2.4.1991 the Taluk Land Board passed fresh orders reiterating the stand taken in the order dated 27.9.1980 and directing that the area to be surrendered is 21 acres and 16.5 cents. C.R.P. No. 865/91 was then filed challenging the said finding and as per order dated 1.3.1993 the C.R.P. was allowed again and it was directed that the case set up by the claimants also should be considered. It is following the said remand that the order dated 14.12.1996 was passed, and that is the order impugned in the revision.

(2.) Mr. N.N. Sugunapalan, who represented the petitioners, submitted that the impugned order has been passed without considering the scope and ambit of S.84(1) and 84(1A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and that the effect of the partition of 1972 vide document No. 2629/72 has not been properly considered.

(3.) A perusal of page 3 of the impugned order shows that the area for surrender has been fixed ignoring partition deed No. 2629/72. It was observed that the liability to surrender was reduced to 21 acres and 16.5 cents in the order dated 27.9.1980 as though document No. 2629/71 was a valid gift and as though there was a normal partition between the joint owners. It was also observed that there was actually no evidence to show that the parties to the partition deed had any right in the properties and that the name given as the partition deed is not sufficient to constitute it a legally valid partition. It was further held that as the declarant did not produce the original documents by which the properties were purchased to establish his claim and as the 4th and 5th children were aged only less than 11 years as on the date of document No. 1972, they were minors and it is beyond ones comprehension to believe that the income from the yaram in the name of the 5th child was substantial enough to enable the declarant to purchase various properties. It is also observed that the partition deed takes in lands purchased prior to 1961 also and this disproves the claim of the declarant that the properties were purchased with the income from the yaram. It was therefore held that the deletion to the extent of 12 acres and 39.5 cents from the area to be surrendered contained in the order dated 27.9.1980 treating the partition as valid is not in order and that the deletion of 7.50 acres in favour of major son, Ahamed Koya Thangal and 4 acres and 89.5 cents in favour of major daughter Amina alias Kunhi Beevi is liable to be revoked. It is based on these findings that the area for surrender was restored as 33 acres and 56 cents.