STATE OF KERALA Vs. K C VASUDEVAN THAMPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal by the State of Kerala against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Ottappalam in O.S No.31 of 1994, which is a suit for realization of money.

(2.) Short pleadings are as follows : Proceedings were initiated against the respondents/plaintiffs under Section 85 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, (briefly, Act, hereafter) demanding them to surrender 18.78 Acres of land included in Palakkad and Ottapalam Taluks said to be excess land under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the first plaintiff surrendered 18.78 Acres of land. Out of the above extent, 11.79 Acres of property was in Ottapalam Taluk. The land was surrendered to the Government in December, 1976. Thereafter, the second plaintiff preferred a claim petition before the Taluk Land Board constituted under the Act on 29-11-1976, asserting that he was interested in 10.13 Acres in Survey No.89/1 and 1.66 Acres in Survey No.89/3 of Ummanazhi amsom. The Taluk Land Board rejected his claim. The second plaintiff therefore filed a revision before this Court. In the judgment passed by this Court, the matter was remitted back to the Taluk Land Board for fresh determination. After hearing the parties, the Taluk Land Board on 16-03-1993 determined that 10.13 Acres in Survey No.89/1 and 1.38 Acres in 1.66 Acres in Survey No.89/3 of Ummanazhi amsom were exempted from the ceiling area of the second plaintiff. It was also ordered to return the said property to the plaintiffs. On 28-05-1993, an extent of 11.51 Acres of property was given back to the plaintiffs. The above extent of 11.51 Acres of land was in possession of the State from December 1976 to 28-05-1993 and during that period, income was derived by the State from a well kept coconut garden. The plaintiffs would estimate that an annual income of Rs.4, 500/- could have been derived from the said property. It is the allegation of the plaintiffs that the State unauthorizedly possessed the land and therefore they are liable to pay mesne profits.

(3.) The defendants (State and its officers) filed a written statement challenging maintainability of the suit. It is admitted that a land having an extent of 11.51 Acres too was taken possession of by the Government as excess land and ultimately it was ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs. The State would contend that they were not in unauthorized occupation or possession of the property. The State disputed the quantum of income derived from the property as shown in the plaint. It is the further contention of the State that the property was handed over to the Village Officer, Kadampazhipuram II for management. Right to take usufructs from the property was sold in public auction from time to time. The State derived an income of Rs.24, 367/- during the period in which the plaintiffs were kept out of possession. The State or its officers are not liable to any amount as claimed in the plaint.