MELETHIL IYYATHIYA UMMA Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitions were filed challenging the order of Taluk Land Board, Perinthalmanna dated 20.2.01 in SR No. 612/73. Panchili Alavi had filed a statement under Section 85(2) of Kerala Land Reforms Act relating to the lands held by him and his family. As per order dated 7.5.77 Taluk Land Board found that the declarant was in possession of 79.19 acres of land in excess of the ceiling area as on 1-1-1970.The declarant challenged that order before this Court in C.R.P. 1713/77.C.R.P. 2157/77 was filed by Receiver of the estate of late V.S. Narayana Iyer contending that the declarant had no tenancy right over portions of the property held to be that of the declarant.As per common order dated 2.8.78, order of the Taluk Land Board was set aside and the case was remanded to the Taluk Land Board by this Court to decide the question of tenancy on the basis of evidence to be adduced. After remand revised order was passed by the Taluk Land Board on 17.9.80 finding that the declarant had been in possession of 79.19 acres of surplus land as on 1-1-1970and is still in possession of the land. Taluk Land Board again directed the declarant to surrender the surplus land of 79.19 acres. That order was challenged before this Court in C.R.P. 2565/80 by the declarant and C.R.P. 2851/80 by the Receiver of the estate of Narayana Iyer and in C.R.P. 3124/80 by yusuf and others claimed to be interested persons.As per common order dated 29.10.81 this Court again set aside the order of Taluk Land Boardin C.R.P. 2565/80, but dismissed C.R.P. 3124/80 filed by Yusuf and others. After that remand, Taluk Land Board passed a revised order on 21.11.1985 directing declarant to surrender 77.14 acres of surplus land. Asdeclarant died by that time, his legal heirs filed C.R.P. 1890/86 and persons claimed to be tenants in CRP 1891/86 before this Court. It was contendedthat Taluk Land Board did not grant opportunity to the parties to prove their case. Both the revisions were disposed by common order dated 18.6.1996. The order of Taluk Land Board was once again set aside and matter was remanded to the Taluk Land Board.This Court found that it is necessary for the Taluk Land Board to consider the contentions ofrevision petitioners, after affording opportunity of hearing. This Court thereforeset aside the order and remanded the case back to the Taluk Land Board.Taluk Land Board thereafter passed the order dated 20-2-2001 challenged in these revisions. The legal heirs of declarant filed C.R.P. 703/01.C.R.P.932/01 was filed by 19 persons who claimed tenancy right over portions of the propertiesand sought to exclude those portions from the properties of the declarant.C.R.P. 1351/01 was filed by 11 other persons who also claimed to be tenants raising identical contentions.First petitioner therein died. Allhislegal heirs are already in the CRP 703/01,932/01, 1351/01 4 party array.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the respective petitioners and learned Government pleader were heard.

(3.) The argument of learned Counsel appearing for petitioners was that Taluk Land Board did not appreciate the proper ambit and scope of the order ofremand dated 20-2-2001and on the impression thatremand was onlyfor hearing argumentsand it does not include recording ofevidence,did not permit either legal heirs of declarant or other interested persons claimed to be tenants, to adduce evidence. Insteadon the basis of the reports submitted by authorised officer on 5-9-2000 and 2-1-2001 and without granting opportunity to challenge those reports accepted the reports and passed the order. It was argued that as opportunity was not granted to adduce evidence or to challenge the report of the authorised officer, the order passed by the Taluk Land Board is to be set aside and the case is to be remanded.