HAMZA Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First petitioner is the son of the declarant and second petitioner is the second wife of the declarant. A draft statement was issued to the second petitioner calling upon her to file objection to surrender 24.35 acres of land. She filed objections. Taluk Land Board rejected her contentions and passed the final order on 29-12-1982 holding that she is liable to surrender the excess land. Second petitioner filed C.R.P. 202 of 1983 before this Court. That C.R.P. was dismissed. Contention of the first petitioner is that he was not aware of the proceedings, that he filed an application u/S.85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act to set aside the order of the Taluk Land Board and that the Board rejected his claim as unsustainable. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioners that the Taluk Land Board ought to have issued notice to all the legal representatives of the declarant as the proceedings were initiated after his death. Declarant died in 1973. Proceedings were initiated only after his death. First petitioner contends that as he was not given any notice of the proceedings in the ceiling case by the Taluk Land Board the order of the Taluk Land Board dated 29-12-1982 is not binding on him. It is contended by him that the entire proceedings are vitiated and so Ext. P1 is void. It is also contended by the first petitioner that the order in C.R.P. 202 of 1983 filed by the second petitioner will not be in any manner binding on him.

(2.) The first question that arises for consideration is as to whether notice to all legal representatives of an assessee is mandatory or notice to someone alone would be sufficient. Government Pleader submitted that admittedly notice was issued to the second petitioner, wife of the land owner and as there was substantial representation in the matter and as she had filed C.R.P. 202 of 1983 and got it dismissed first petitioner cannot advance any new claim in the matter.

(3.) Rule 10 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules enables the Taluk Land Board to prepare draft statement of lands to be surrendered. Publication of draft statement is made under Rule 11. Under R.12 draft statement prepared under R.10 together with a notice in Form No. 3 inviting objections to the draft statement shall be served on the persons interested. In a case where the draft statement relates to an adult unmarried person the notice should be served upon him. If such a person is a lunatic, idiot or a person subject to any like disability, the draft statement together with the notice should be served on the guardian, manager or other persons in charge of such person or of the property of such person. If the draft statement relates to a family, the notice contemplated under R.12 should be served upon the husband and wife or such of them as exists. In a case where the family consists of only minors or where both the spouses are lunatics or idiots or persons subject to any like disability, the notice should be served upon the guardian, manager or other person in charge of such minor or such husband and wife or their property. R.12(1)(iii) provides that where the draft statement relates to any other person the notice with the draft statement shall be served on the person competent to file a statement under Sub-s.(2) of S.85 or under sub-s. (2) of S.85A on behalf of that other persons. As the ceiling case was booked against the land owner (father of the first petitioner and husband of the second petitioner) at a time when he was dead, notice contemplated under R.12 should have been issued to all the legal representatives. Admittedly that was not done. There is no case for the respondents that the entire estate left by the assessee devolved on the second petitioner only.