IDICHERIYA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who has been directed by the order of the Taluk Land Board, Pathanapuram, under challenge in this revision, to surrender an extent of 5.72 acres of land, attacks the order on several grounds. In Para.16 of his objection to the draft statement published by the Taluk Land Board he had mentioned that certain alienations made by him before 1-1-1970 cannot be held to be invalid since on the dates of those alienations he bad only land within the ceiling limit as determined under the law in force during that time. The alienations effected by him concern 6.90 acres of land and the alienations were in favour of two sons, a daughter and a daughter inlaw and these were in 1967. He had also contended that although these alienations were termed as sales the transferor was ill advised to call them by that name and really they were gift deeds executed out of natural love and affection towards the donees. In the face of the categorical statement in the sale deeds that the properties were being sold for consideration and without any other material to contradict it excepting the assertion of the petitioner, the Taluk Land Board was not prepared to accept the petitioner's case. I see no reason to take a different view. But the contention raised that the alienations would be valid since on the dates of the alienations the petitioner was holding land less than the ceiling area has not been noticed in the order of the Taluk Land Board. In fact, if the contention was correct in law, the petitioner was entitled to succeed. Vide Joseph v. State of Kerala ( 973 KLT 701 ). Therefore , whether the petitioner had only extent below the ceiling area under the law in force at the relevant time is a matter which calls for consideration and the decision with regard to exclusion of this area must be found upon the decision on that question. This question may be re-examined by the Taluk Land Board.

(2.) It is contended by the petitioner that in items 5, 6 and 7 covering 5.34 acres of land 2 acres is rubber plantation. This point has not been adverted to in the order of the Taluk Land Board. But counsel for the Taluk Land Board referring to the remarks received by him points out to me that this is a matter which really engaged the attention of the Taluk Land Board and the Taluk Land Board was convinced on materials available that the claim for exemption cannot stand as there was no rubber plantation prior to 1-1-1970. I am not going into it, for it is not sufficient that there was some material sufficient to hold so. There must be a finding by the Taluk Land Board. The Taluk Land Board must consider this question of exemption in regard to 2 acres claimed in the objection of the petitioner dated 23-3-1974.

(3.) In this revision petition petitioner claims that an area of 45 cents ought to have been exempted as that area was occupied by a public road. Evidently it is a later development of the case. There is no reference to any public road in the objection filed by the petitioner There is no plea of any absence of title in regard to the 45 cents. What is mentioned in passing is that;