ARIKKARA AMBU Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant in Ceiling Case No. 1208/73 on the file of the Taluk Land Board, Hosdurg is the petitioner in the revision petition In a partition, the tarwad property in R.S. No 1/42A was allotted to one Kodoth Kunhi Kalu Nair. The property devolved on his wife and children on his death. The wife of Kunhi Kelu Nair leased out a tent of 4 acres out of that plot in favour of the petitioner. He has been in possession of the same as a tenant. He purchased the landlord's right and obtained a purchase certificate under S. 72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1983, (for short, the Act) .The deceased wife of respondent No. 4 was allotted this property as one of the daughters of Kunhi Kelu Nair She filed a declaration under S. 85 of the Act stating that she was in possession of the same. The petitioner was not impleaded as a party in that proceeding. The deceased wife of respondent No. 4 opted to surrender the entire area of R.S. No. 1/42A including the 4 acres of land which is in possession of the petitioner. When the authorities made an attempt to dispossess the petitioner, he filed an application before the Taluk Land Board under S. 85(8) of the Act claiming his right and possess on over the same. But, the Board upheld the plea of the petitioner to the extent of 1 acre, which, according to the petitioner, had already been excluded, but has rejected the claim of the petitioner in respect of the other 3 acres of land.

(2.) The petitioner contends that the Taluk Land Board has erred in ignoring the certificate of purchase issued to the petitioner by a competent Land Tribunal. The reasons stated by the Taluk Land Board for rejecting the claim of the petitioner are untenable. It has also erred in holding that the claim is delayed. The decision of the Board is illegal. It is prayed by the petitioner that his claim in respect of the other 3 acres of land may be upheld.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader contended, inter alia, that the excess land has already been assigned to various persons in 1976. The present claim was filed after a lapse of about 13 years and as such it is barred by time. The certificate of purchase was found to be an unreliable document, for which no reliance could be placed on it.