NARAYANAN CHETTY Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD N WYNAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, the petitioner's one complaint is that certain lands which are in the possession of tenants are treated as lands in his possession and the ceiling area fixed. According to the petitioner 5 1/2 acres of land are in the possession of tenants. In the return filed by him in annexure H, he mentioned that four persons are in possession of these lands as tenants from 1964-65. The matter was enquired into by the District Collector. The enquiry revealed that the above mentioned 5 1/2 acres is owned and possessed by the petitioner himself. So, in the draft statement prepared and served on the petitioner this 5 1/2 acres was included as lands held by the petitioner. He was given an opportunity to substantiate his case that this area is held by his tenants. No attempt was made to prove the tenancy. Consequently, in the order of the Taluk Land Board this area is treated as land held by the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner's counsel was not able to point out any irregularity or illegality in the conclusion of the Taluk Land Board. The persons who are said to be tenants were not examined by the petitioner. He himself stated in the return filed that they are his workers for a long time. The lease itself is stated to have been given only in 1964 and 1965. Any voluntary transfer after 16th September, 1963, has to be treated as invalid under S.84 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. S.74 also provides that a lease created after the commencement of the Act (1-4-1964) is invalid. Hence the conclusion of the Taluk Land Board to treat this 5 acres 50 cents as lands held by the petitioner is correct.

(3.) Another objection to the order of the Taluk Land Board is regarding the extent of the land exempted under S.81 of the Act. 50 cents in S. No. 409/2 was claimed for exemption under S.81(1)(m) being covered by a tank, house and outhouse etc. Another 50 cents in the same survey number was stated to be uncultivable land, thodu and bunds, also to be exempted under S.81(1)(m) of the Act. In the draft statement only one cent was reckoned as eligible for exemption being the area occupied by a well in the above survey number. This was objected to by the petitioner in his objection to the draft statement. It is seen that this draft statement was forwarded to the authorised officer for enquiry and report. He recommended an exemption of another one cent for the outhouse and further recommended exemption of a bund, five cents in extent, used as a footpath leading to the outhouse. This was accepted by the Taluk Land Board and thus an area of another six cents was also exempted under S.81 of the Act. The main complaint of the petitioner is, in passing the order the Taluk Land Board has relied on a report submitted by the authorised officer without giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to prove that the report in this respect cannot be accepted. Incidentally, it was contended that the authorised officer's report is not acceptable in evidence since he did not give notice of his proposed enquiry to the petitioner.