K V SREEDHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioners, who are the claim petitioners under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, (for short, 'the Act') challenging the common order passed in L.B.476/73 on the files of the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad. The Taluk Land Board, Palakkad, directed the declarant Sri.Velayudhan to surrender an extent of 67.66 acres of land as excess land above the ceiling limit. Against the said order, one Sri.K.K. Sukumaran and 5 others have filed CRP. No.1447/97 and the revision petitioners in CRP.No.237/10 and others filed CRP No.1105/97. This Court, by a common order dated 17 -12 -98 in the above CRP directed the Land Board to consider the claim of the claim petitioners under Section 85 (8) of the KLR Act and the impugned order in the above CRP was set aside. Thereafter, various claims filed under Section 85(8) of the Act were considered by the Land Board and the order was passed afresh. Again, the revision petitioner in CRP No.237/10 filed CRP No.169/01 and the revision petitioners in CRP No.644/09 filed CRP No.68/01 challenging the said orders passed by the Tribunal. In those C.R.Ps. also, by a common order dated 16 -9 -08, this Court set aside the order passed by the Land Board and directed the Land Board to re -consider the contentions raised by the revision petitioners and to take a decision afresh and to pass orders accordingly. Again, the Land Board, in compliance with the said order, considered all the revision petitioners' claim and passed the impugned order under challenge, rejecting their entire claims. The legality and propriety of the findings by which their claims have been rejected are under challenge in these Revision Petitions.

(2.) IT is the case of the revision petitioners in CRP No.236/10 that they are the legal heirs of two brothers by name Prabhakaran Vaidyar and Sukumaran Vaidyar, who were the respondents in MFA No.270/78 on the files of this Court filed by the State. The said MFA was filed by the State against the order of the Tribunal, Palakkad, allowing O.A.Nos.999/74 and 1008/74. The Original Applications had been filed by two brothers claiming exemption from vesting under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act. They had obtained title over 2.50 acres and 6.03 acres of land under a Partition Deed No.675/65 of S.R.O., Palakkad, executed in their family. This Court, by judgment dated 23 - 6 -82, dismissed MFA No.270/78 declaring absolute right and possession of the revision petitioners and confirmed the order passed in OA Nos.999/74 and 1008/74 accepting the petitioners' ownership and possession over the said property. These properties were restored to the revision petitioners in execution of the order passed in the said O.As. and confirmed in the MFA. But, the said property was also included in the account of the declarant and the property directed to be surrendered by the declarant.

(3.) IN C.R.P.No.644/09, it is the case of the revision petitioners that they are the absolute owners in possession of 2.87 Acres in Sy.No.93/6A and 0.06 Acre in Sy.No.93/6C of Puduppariyaram II Village. But the same was also erroneously included in the account of the declarant and also in the property directed to be surrendered by him. The lands originally belonged to the common ancestor Marukapully Valli. The 'adangal' extract reflects her remittance of basic tax in respect of the lands. On her death, the said property devolved on her sons - Velandy and Ramankutty. The revisions petitioners 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of Velandy. The revision petitioners 3 to 7 are the legal heirs of Ramankutty. The revision petitioners had produced 49 tax receipts to drive home their point. 18, out of those receipts, pertained to the period from 15/1/1947 to 26/11/1969. The tax receipts had been issued in favour of Marukapully Valli and her legal heirs. According to the revision petitioners, the irresistible conclusion, therefore, is that the assessee had no right as on 1/1/1970. The lands are being used by the revision petitioners as thrashing floor for decades. The possession of the revision petitioners is upheld in O.S.No.538/91. The judgment passed in the said O.S. was also produced before the Tribunal. That apart, 1.30 Acres, out of 2.87 Acres comprised in Sy.No.93/6A was the subject matter of O.A.No.27/04 of the Forest Tribunal and it was found that the land was not a forest land on the appointed day. In the earlier C.R.P.No.68/01, this Court directed to re -consider the matter afresh, after discussing the entire materials. But the 2nd respondent has committed the same mistake again and rejected the claim of the revision petitioners, without considering any of the documents produced by them.