PERINCHERI MATTIL MAMMAD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Taluk Land Board, Ernad initiated ceiling proceedings through C.R. 606/77 against the properties owned and held by deceased Parammal Ambadi Kunhappu Haji, who died in 1975. An extent of 3.15 acres in R.S. 378/3 of the Pallikkal village was included in the draft statement as property belonging to the declarant. According to the petitioner, the declarant had no right at all in the property as on 01.01.1970 and that the said property belonged in jenmam to Cheramangalam mana. Deceased Kunhappu Haji was holding the property as a kanari under the mana. While so, in 1955, Vayakkaramban Pokkutty took the property on oral lease from Kunhappu Haji and he was holding the property as a tenant entitled to fixity of tenure. According to the petitioner, he purchased the above tenancy right in 1977 by virtue of a registered assignment deed. In 1978, the rights of the land owner and the intermediary was assigned in favour of the petitioner by virtue of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Kondotty in suo motu proceedings No. 982/77.

(2.) In the counter statement filed by the declarant, it was stated that various items included in the draft statement are in the possession of tenants. The names and details of around 70 tenants were available and notices were served on them. The petitioner is the 70th claimant in the matter. He had entered appearance before the Taluk Land Board and filed detailed statement narrating his claim over the property. Documents in support of his contention were also produced. It seems that the Taluk Land Board has passed the impugned order on 30.04.2002 without considering the claims raised by the petitioner. It seems that only the claims raised by a few claimants were considered by the Taluk Land Board. As far as the remaining claimants are concerned, it has been observed in the impugned order that there claims would be considered later. At the same time, the property belongs to those claimants also are directed to be surrendered, which includes the property of the present petitioner also. Consequently, the petitioner has come up in revision.

(3.) Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner Sri. T. Krishnanunni and the learned Special Government Pleader Smt. Susheela R. Bhat.