KUNJANDI Vs. JALUK LAND BOARD CHITTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point that arises in this case is whether lands once exempted by the Land Board in a ceiling case under S.81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1 of 1964, for short the Act, can be denied exemption in a subsequent ceiling case where the declaration was filed under S.87 of the Act if the lands have not undergone any change in the classification subsequent to the decision in the earlier case.

(2.) The petitioners herein purchased all the lands of one Natarajan whose ceiling case was disposed of by the Land Board, Trivandrum holding that he can retain a certain extent. The said Natarajan retained lands he was entitled to retain and surrendered the excess lands. It was thereafter that the petitioners got an assignment of all the lands the said Natarajan was allowed to retain. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a ceiling return. Though the return was filed under S.85A of the Act, it can only be under S.87 of the Act as the petitioner's purchase was admittedly after 1-1-1970. On 1-1-70, the petitioners were not owning, holding or possessing any land. The Taluk Land Board got the lands verified by the Authorised Officer and issued a draft statement to the petitioner. The petitioner filed objections to the draft statement contending that the lands which were exempted by the Land Board in the earlier ceiling case in the hands of their assignor cannot now be held to be lands not exempted under the Act since they have not undergone any change in the classification in the hands of the petitioners. But the petitioner's objection was overruled and the Taluk Land Board held that certain lands which were earlier exempted in the ceiling case against their assignor Natarajan are lands not entitled to be exempted. On that basis the petitioner's ceiling limit was calculated. Accordingly, the petitioners were directed to surrender 2. 86 acres as excess lands. In this Civil Revision Petition the petitioners challenge the order of the Taluk Land Board holding that the petitioners have got excess lands and directing them to surrender the same.

(3.) Shri M.C. Gopi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that in view of S.101(4) of the Act the Taluk Land Board was in the wrong in not exempting lands which were once exempted by the Land Board in the earlier ceiling case against the petitioners' assignor. It is also submitted that in the hands of the petitioners the lands in question have not undergone any change as far as their classification under the Act is concerned.