(1.) This revision petition is under S.103 of Act I of 1964, against an order passed by the Taluk Land Board in a proceeding initiated under S.85(7) of the Act. The Taluk Land Board found that the petitioner had no excess land as on 1-1-1970, as per the order passed on 30-11-1985. Subsequently, it was noticed that in 1980 the petitioner's two daughters Nabesa and Zainaba, had acquired certain properties on 3-10-1980. The share that devolved on both of these persons, Nabesa and Zainaba was included in the extent of the properties held by the petitioner on that date as a member of his family and the Taluk Land Board found that the petitioner had excess land of 0.521/2 acres and directed him to surrender that land. It is that order that is challenged in this revision.
(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that on the relevant date 3-10-1980 Zainaba was either a major or a married minor. The Taluk Land Board found that she was only an unmarried minor and included the extent of land belonging to her in the ceiling area of the petitioner. The question for consideration, therefore, is whether Zainaba was a major or a married minor on 3-10-1980. If she was a major or a married minor, she would not be a member of the petitioner's family in view of the definition of the expression 'family' in the Act which does not include a major or a married minor. The petitioner has not shown by any evidence that Zainaba was a major on 3-10-1980. On the other hand, there is a report of the Deputy Tahsildar dated 3-10-1986 that the school records show the date of birth of Zainaba as 2-5-1965. As there is no other evidence, this statement has to be accepted and the age of Zainaba has to be fixed as only 15 years on 3-10-1980. On that basis the Taluk Land Board was right in holding that she was a minor on that date. The second question to be considered is whether she was married on 3-10-1980. The petitioner relies on the report of the Deputy Tahsildar dated 26-12-1987 in which he has stated that Zainaba was married as on the date of the execution of the document on 3-10-1980. He, therefore, contends that this report made after an enquiry as contemplated under S.105 of the Act is conclusive proof that she was not married on 3-10-1980 and he relies on a decision of this Court in Abbas v. Taluk Land Board ( 1987 (2) KLT 533 ) for the purpose. It is, therefore, contended that this report should have been accepted by the Taluk Land Board and it should have come to the conclusion that Zainaba was a married minor on 3-10-1980 in which case her share of the properties taken assignment by her and others should have been excluded from the ceiling area of the petitioner.
(3.) The file produced before me shows that on 30-10-1986 the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Land Reforms) Badagara reported that Zainaba was 19 years as on 3-10-1980 and was also married and therefore there was no scope for proceeding under S.87 of the Act. This report did not show the basis or give any reasons for his conclusion about the age of Zainaba or about her status as a married woman. He was asked to make fresh enquiries and there is subsequent report by him on 30-12-1986, in which he stated that the school record shows that the date of birth of Zainaba as 2-5-1965. He also stated that his earlier report regarding the age was based on the recitals in the assignment deed. From this, it is clear that the first report was made without any enquiry, without any basis and that he was prepared to correct the mistake committed by him in his subsequent report dated 30-12-1986. When he examined the school records, he rightly found that the age was shown therein as 2-5-1965. Later when objections were raised by the petitioner before the Taluk Land Board and the objections were forwarded to the Deputy Tahsildar for his remarks, he conducted an enquiry, and it is in that enquiry report dated 26-12-1987 that he said that Zainaba was married on 3-1.0-1980. Thus the contention is advanced that this report dated 26-12-1987 as a report made after enquiry under S.105 is final and binding on the parties and thus there cannot be a further enquiry before the Land Board especially when that has not been challenged and thus it should have been held that Zainaba was married on 3-10-1980. The counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Abbas v. Taluk Land Board (1987 (2) KLT 533), for this purpose.