SARAMMA VARGHESE Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .P Lakshmikuttiamma was the original declarant before the Taluk Land Board wherein, after one modification, an extent of 17.39 acres of land was found in excess of the ceiling limit; in the possession of the declarant. This was directed to be surrendered by order dated 31.10.2002. Around 37 persons claiming to be in occupation of the lands directed to be surrendered and styling themselves as persons interested, filed applications under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KLR Act) before the Taluk Land Board. 15 such persons who claimed under Section85(8) are before this Court challenging the order of the Taluk Land Board dated 31.3.2005 wherein their claims were purportedly considered and rejected. Except revision petitioners 1 and 2 who holds more than one acre each, all the other petitioners claiming to be interested, holds much smaller extents of property.

(2.) THE Taluk Land Board, in the impugned order, extracted the report of the Authorized Officer wherein the claim of each of the revision petitioners were dealt with separately. With respect to the revision petitioners 1 and 2, the Authorized Officer reported that though the purchase certificate was obtained on the basis of the possession prior to 1.1.1970, the predecessor-in-interest of the revision petitioners came into possession only after 1.1.1970, i.e, by document No.1529/1980 and 787/1993. The revision petitioners numbering 3 and 6 to 12 and 14 also produced purchase certificates issued by the Land Tribunal. Again, in the opinion of the Authorized Officer, such transactions being after 1.1.1970, revision petitioners were not entitled to claim under Section 85(8). The claim with respect to the 4th revision petitioner was not dealt with either by the Authorized Officer or the Taluk Land Board. The land claimed by the 5th revision petitioner was reported as having not been included in the land sought to be taken possession of from the original declarant. The claim of the 13th revision petitioner was allowed deleting the lands claimed from the ceiling proceedings.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that going by the Supreme Court judgment reported in Ahmmed Kutty v. Mariakutty Umma (2000(1)KLT 829), the purchase certificate issued under Section 72K is the conclusive proof of the assignment to the tenants of the right title and interest of the land owner over the holding as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 72K. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that when the enactment enjoins that the certificate would be treated as conclusive proof, then, the law would forbid other evidence to be adduced for the purpose of contradicting or varying aforesaid conclusiveness unless there is an allegation of fraud or collusion and that the document is vitiated by such fraud or collusion.