POULOSE Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS per the impugned order of the Taluk Land Board, kodungallur dated 31-10-1981 the petitioners were directed to surrender 8. 61 acres as excess land in the possession of their family. Their contention that 17. 07 acres comprised in Sy. No. 262/6 and 263 fall under the exempted category as a commercial site was not accepted by the Taluk Land Board. If the aforesaid area is liable to exemption, the petitioners are not liable to surrender any extent of land.

(2.) THE principal question therefore is whether the aforesaid extent of 17. 07 acres is a commercial site liable to exemption under s. 81 (1) (q) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. An authorised officer was deputed by the Taluk Land Board to make a local inspection and report about the nature of the land. In his report dated 19-10-1981 it is stated: "the land in Survey No. 262/6 and 263 held by the declarant is a water-logged area. THE whole area of 17-07 covered by the above survey No: is principally used for prawn fishing. According to the certificate of the Fisheries Department produced by the declarant, it is seen that the Fisheries department has issued licence for the prawn fishing for the entire area for the period from 1962-63 to 1980-81. THE area covered by Survey Nos. 262/6 and 263 held by the declarant therefore fall under the exempted category being commercial area. THE admissibility of the claim may be decided by the Taluk land Board. " THE Board without anything more has rejected the claim for exemption on the ground that the declarant has failed to show that the land is not used for any agricultural purpose. THE Board takes note of the fact that water-logged areas are generally used both for agriculture and for prawn-fishing.

(3.) WE therefore set aside the impugned order of the Taluk land Board and remand the case for fresh disposal according to law and in the light of the observations and directions contained in this order. The petitioners are at liberty to adduce fresh evidence to substantiate their contention that the land is a commercial site. The CRP is allowed as indicated above. No costs. . .