T.HAMZA Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order impugned in this revision is the order passed by the Taluk Land Board, Ottappalam dated 31.3.2003, which concluded the proceedings initiated under sub-section (9A) of Section 85 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 ("KLR Act" for short) as per order dated 30.5.1992.

(2.) RAMA Iyer, in pursuance of the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 ("KLR Act" for short) filed a return on 11.12.1972 before the Taluk Land Board regarding the excess lands held by him. The Taluk Land Board, by order dated 29.5.1975 in C.C.No.102 of 1973 directed surrender of 8.71 acres of land out of 16.87 acres held by the said Rama Iyer. The excess land was also taken over on 26.9.1975. Subsequently on 4.11.1975, his son filed a petition before the Taluk Land Board and contended that the lands taken over were liable to be returned to the legal heirs, since Rama Iyer died before the passing of the order by the Taluk Land Board and no notice was issued to the legal representatives. The Taluk Land Board refused to consider the application by its order dated 10.1.1976 and held that there was absolutely no requirement to reconsider the order of the Taluk Land Board on 29.5.1975. Against this, the legal heirs of the deceased Rama Iyer filed C.R.P.No.461 of 1976. The above C.R.P. was heard along with O.P.No.4930 of 1976, filed by one of the sons of Rama Iyer, and the matter was remanded by order dated 8.11.1976. This Court found that no orders were passed on the return filed by the said Rama Iyer by the Taluk Land Board till the death of the declarant on 9.1.1975. The order passed on 29.5.1975 was against the deceased declarant without notice to the legal heirs. In the said circumstance, the Civil Revision Petition as also the Original Petition were allowed, setting aside the original order of the Taluk Land Board dated 29.5.1975 as also the order passed on 10.1.1976 refusing to consider the objections filed by the legal heirs; and the matter was remanded back to the Taluk Land Board.

(3.) SRI .R.Sreehari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would contend that Section 85(9A) of the KLR Act was inserted by Act 16 of 1989 with effect from 30.5.1989. The proviso to sub-section (9A) specifically provides a limitation of three years from the date of coming into force of Act 16 of 1989, for reopening any case on the grounds provided under sub-section (9A). The proceedings having been taken on 30.5.1992, though only with a delay of one day, the limitation provided under the proviso acts with full vigour and hence the order is beyond time. It is also contended that with respect to the revision petitioners who had obtained valid Purchase Certificates from the Land Tribunal under the KLR Act, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Ahmmed Kutty v. Mariakutty Umma, 2000 (1) KLT 829 (SC), applies squarely. The Purchase Certificates cannot be overturned by the Taluk Land Board; nor can the Taluk Land Board ignore the same, since it is conclusive proof of the purchase. With respect to the other revision petitioners who had purchased the various extents of lands from the legal heirs of late Rama Iyer, after obtaining release of the land from the Government; it is submitted that they are entitled to protection under Section 7E of the KLR Act.