High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
SMT. RUGMINI AMMA v. STATE OF KERALA - CRP No. 1696 of 2003  RD-KL 538 (18 August 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMCRP No. 1696 of 2003()
1. SMT.RUGMINI AMMA, W/O.LATE RAVUNNI NAIR,
2. SRI.SIVADAS, S/O.RAVUNNI NAIR,
3. SMT.V.VIJAYALAKSHMI, D/O.RAVUNNI NAIR,
4. SARASWATHI, D/O.RAVUNNI NAIR,
5. SMT.VALSALA, D/O.RAVUNNI NAIR,
6. SMT.RADHA, D/O.RAVUNNI NAIR,
7. SRI.NARAYANAN, S/O.RAVUNNI NAIR,
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
2. TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED
3. TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD.
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN (1)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN
O R D E R
M.RAMACHANDRAN, JC.R.P. NO. 1696 Of 2003
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2006
ORDEROrders passed in SM2/87 dated 12.06.2003 by the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad is subjected to challenge in this proceedings. It may not be necessary to sketch the details starting from the draft orders wherein there was a direction for surrendering 11.44.50 acres of land by the declarants. Ultimately, the direction by the Taluk Land Board was that the petitioners were to surender 0.69 acres of land. However the option statement was not acceptable to them since it had been reported that land so earmarked were not usable. 0.69 acres thereupon were earmarked, being garden land in Survey No.363/01 of Kongad I village, for purpose of surrender.
2. Mr. Radhakrishnan appearing for the petitioners submits that in any case the above direction was unwarranted, and without jurisdiction, even if it is conceded that there was land which were to be surrendered. According to him it is the discretion of the land owner to earmark the area to surrender. This argument is stoutly opposed by the learned Government Pleader who submits that the very purpose of the act is to take possession of excess land for the C.R.P. NO. 1696 OF 2003 2 purpose of distributing to landless persons and unusable land will not serve the purpose. However no provision have been indicated to show that that in the matter of choosing land, the opinion of the declarants could have been over reached or there was reserved powers for the authorities, to insist that a specified area as pointed out required to be surrendered.
3. Mr. Radhakrishnan submits that the order suffered from another error in respect of an extent of 2.05 acres of land. The argument is that at the relevant time, the above extent of land was not in the possession of the petitioners. If this was excluded the decision would have been that there was no surplus land, and there was no need for the Land Board to suggest that surrender at all was required. This was in respect of a property ad measuring 2.04 acres.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that the above was a mistake of facts. The above piece of land was in the possession of Mr. Sankunni Nair from the year 1951 onwards. The person was the brother of the petitioner herein. Mr. Radhakrishnan also refers to the observations that have been made by the Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A.502/1980. It is pointed out that the Government was a party and the enquiry made by the Forest Tribunal, that had resulted in the above finding. They, therefore deserve exclusion, and the basic reason for ordering surrender of the properties in the C.R.P. NO. 1696 OF 2003 3 present proceedings was misconceived. Evidently the Land Tribunal has not applied its mind to this piece of evidence and the binding order of this court. If this position is accepted, the resultant situation is that the land in possession of petitioners would have been within the ceiling limits which naturally leads to a position that there was no liability for them to surrender any land as there was no surplus. Resultantly the CRP requires to be allowed, and it is declared that the petitioner has no liability for surrendering any properties. No costs.
M.RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGERV/ C.R.P. NO. 1696 OF 2003 4
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.