MARATT RUBBER LTD Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the proceedings of the Taluk Land Board, Ernad in CR 1/75/C7 dated 31.1.1983, the Taluk Land Board found that the petitioner Company was in possession of excess land and it was directed to surrender the excess land. The excess land includes an extent of 273.17 acres in RS.87/2 of Pallikkara Desom of Thikkodi Village and an extent of 15 acres and 25 1/2 cents in RS.42/2 of Thurayur Village. These lands were taken possession of.

(2.) As per Section 90 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, after the determination of the extent and particulars of land to be surrendered, the Taluk Land Board shall forward the necessary documents to the Land Tribunal and direct the Land Tribunal to prepare and submit to the Taluk Land Board a compensation roll showing the details mentioned in Clause (a) to (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 90. The Taluk Land Board directed the Land Tribunal to prepare a compensation roll. The Land Tribunal issued notice to the petitioner. Petitioner appeared and contended that the land in question was being cultivated by the petitioner and that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation accordingly as per Schedule IV of the Act. The Land Tribunal passed an order dated 31.1.1987, fixing the compensation payable at Rs. 100/- per acre, adopting the value as shown in item 4A of Part I of Schedule IV of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The reason stated by the Land Tribunal to arrive at this conclusion is that as per the office records and as per the orders of the Taluk Land Board the land was classified as "water logged". The Land Tribunal also held that the petitioner did not prove during which period they cultivated the land.

(3.) Challenging the order of the Land Tribunal, the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) Kozhikode. Before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed I.A.No. 154 of 1991 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the land in question, to verify the physical features of the land and to ascertain whether the land is fit for cultivation and was being cultivated as such. The application for the issue of a commission was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. That order was challenged by the petitioner in O.P.No. 782 of 1992 before this Court. This Court did not interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Authority. However, in the judgment in O.P.No. 782 of 1992 dated 24.7.1992, this Court held that the petitioner will be given an opportunity to adduce evidence and that the Appellate Authority should consider the contention of the petitioner that the property is a nilam coming under category No. 13 in Part II of Schedule IV.