GOPALAN NAIR Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD TALIPARAMBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent, the Taluk Land Board, Taliparamba, bad by its order dated 17-3-1976 made in its proceedings No. TLB 676/73 (TBA) directed the revision petitioner (the declarant) who had tiled a statement under S.85 (2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969 (the Act), to surrender to the Government 0.62 acre of dry land found to have been held by him in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed under S.82(1) of the Act.

(2.) The petitioner having surrendered 0. 62 acre of land to the 2nd respondent, the Tahsildar, Taliparamba, on 23-4-1976 in obedience to the said order dated 17-3-1976 passed by the Taluk Land Board, he later on filed before the Taluk Land Board an application in Form 7A of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970 (the Rules), under sub-s.(10) of S 85 incorporated by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act (Act 27 of 1979) (the Amendment Act) for restoration of ownership or possession or both of the surplus land assumed possession from him. The Taluk Land Board recording a finding that the land assumed possession by the Tahsildar from the petitioner had already been assigned on registry under S.96 of the Act before the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance 8 of 1979, which came into force on 7-7-1979, dismissed the application. It is aggrieved by the dismissal of the application this revision has been preferred by the declarant.

(3.) Sri V. M. Kurian, the counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the view taken by the Taluk Land Board was not sustainable. According to him the bar under proviso (b) to S.84(1A) incorporated by the Amendment Act would apply only to "land which has been assigned on registry under S.96 before the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1979". His reasoning is that in as much as it was not the land gifted by the petitioner to his daughter on 30-10-1974 that was surrendered in pursuance of the order passed by the Taluk Land Board, the bar contained in proviso (b) to S.84(1A) would not apply to the present case so as to deprive him of the benefit conferred by sub-s.(1A) of S.84 incorporated by the Amendment Act. Sub-s.(1A) of S.84, so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this case, reads as follows:-