MARGARET Vs. LAND REFORMS APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The operational perimeter and jurisdictional confines, which bind the Taluk Land Boards, while exercising the powers prescribed to it under the provisions of Rule 136A of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1970 presents, in the maze of all the facts involved, to be the one issue, which is the pivot on which any resolution of the disputes in this case would obtain consummation.

(2.) Before dealing with the issues of law placed by the learned counsel on either side, it would, of course, be necessary to have a quick glance of the facts, a wood cut of which is being shown as under:

(3.) The genesis of the controversy is that at the time when Ext.P8 was issued in favour of the father of the third respondent, the property comprised in survey No.726/3 was not included. The petitioners, therefore, say that the property comprised in this survey number was at no time given in ownership to the third respondent or her father and that, therefore, she has no right over the same at all.