SASI ALIAS SAJEEVAN Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD, CHITTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Kesavan, Edachira was the declarant under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963(hereinafter referred to as the Act) in CC No.610 of 1973. The declarant claimed a partition having been effected in the year 24.1.1970 between himself, his mother and 3 children. The Taluk Land Board as per order dated 10.7.1991 determined the land in possession of the declarant and directed to surrender an extent of 6.87 acres of land comprised in Kizhakkethara and Muthalamada village. The revision petitioner herein having purchased 2.32 = acres of land from Rugmini, the daughter of the declarant, approached the Land Board, Chittoor with a petition under Section 85(8) of the Act. The claimant/revision petitioner under Section 85(8) claimed that the partition deed executed in 24.1.1970, though called a partition was in effect, a division of the individual properties of the declarant along with the family properties. Schedule D in the partition deed, was specifically set apart in the name of Rugmini. The land now sought to be excluded, from the ceiling limit of the declarant, is a portion of schedule D property. It was his contention that a mere reading of his title deed along with the partition deed would show that the said property was the individual property of the declarant acquired in his personal capacity. In such circumstances, despite the nomenclature of partition, there is a transfer in the name of the daughter by way of gift. Such gifts executed in the name of the son or daughter between 1.1.1970 and 5.11.1974 by a declarant ought to be excluded under sub-section (1A) of Section 84, is the specific contention.

(2.) THE Taluk Land Board, however, held that the claimant obtained the property from Rugmini in the year 1981 by a registered document and Rugmini obtained right over the property as per the partition deed executed in the year 1970. The partition having been effected after the notified date, i.e, 1.1.1970, it was held that the same is invalid and no portion of the property is liable to be excluded from the ceiling limit of the land holder. It was also found that this Court vide judgment in CRP No. 1626 of 1991, dated 28.10.1991 affirmed the right to option of the declarant, which right was exercised by him and accepted by the Taluk Land Board, vide order dated 10.11.1997. On this reasoning, the claim under Section 85(8) was rejected.

(3.) IN Krishnan's case(supra), the claimant under Section 85(8) was not issued with notice at the first instance since his land was not included in the draft statement of the Taluk Land Board. Subsequently, on a modification made in accordance with the order of this Court in revision, the said land was sought to be included. It was thus that the claimant filed an application under Section 85(8) and the Taluk Land Board proceeded to decide his claim as such and rejected it. This Court found that whether the interest that the petitioner's claim is legally valid and whether such interest can save the land from surrender are matters which have to be considered in an enquiry under sub-section (5) or (7). Under Section 85(8), it is only the issue of 'prima facie' interest in the land which falls for consideration. Following the said decision, another learned Single Judge in Venkiteswara naidu's case (supra) held that lawful title and right in the land need not be established at the stage of proceedings under Section 85(8). It was held that it is sufficient if the claimant says that he has a claim upon or legal concern in the land.