Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NHANDAMAKKAL THOMAS versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


NHANDAMAKKAL THOMAS v. STATE OF KERALA - CRP No. 1877 of 1997(E) [2007] RD-KL 16206 (21 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 1877 of 1997(E)

1. NHANDAMAKKAL THOMAS
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.T.L.ANANTHASIVAN

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :21/08/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

C.R.P. NO.1877 of 1997

Dated this the 21st day of August , 2007

O R D E R

In this Civil Revision Petition under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Board Act the petitioner/ declarant impugns the order of the Taluk Land Board dated 28.8.1997 issued when the case was reopened under section 85 (9) of KLR Act directing the petitioner to surrender an extent of 4.50 acres of land in Survey No.358/IAIAIA of Padichira village in Sulthan Battery. The property in question is included in the account of Smt. Mariyam the petitioner's wife. In the original proceeding that property was also sought to be included in the account of the declarant. The declarant contended that his wife Smt.Mariyam does not have an actual possession of the property. He contended that person by name Sri.Poozhipurath Varkey had trespassed his wife and that Sri. Varkey has obtained certificate of purchase for 10.70 acres of land as per SMC No.4346/76. It was virtually accepting the above contention that the Taluk Land Board in ts previous order dated 18.10.1985 ordered surrender of 4.95 acres of land by the declarant. In the proceeding after reopening it is seen that the Land Board is ignoring the contention that neither the CRP No. 1877/1997 2 declarant nor his wife Smt.Mariyam has having possession of 4.50 acres and that it is Sri.Varkey who is having an actual possession on the reason that the basic tax is being paid by Smt. Mariam. I am of the view that in this case where it was contended that Sri. Varkey is in possession and Sri. Varkey himself contended before the Land Board in previous proceeding that he is in possession on the strength of an lean given by the Pulpally Devaswam and he supported in that contention by a certificate of purchase . if as a mater of fact the property in question (4.50 acres) is under the possession of Sri.Varkey, then it will not be chooses to include that property in the account of the declarant.

2. I set aside the impugned order and direct the Land Board to take a fresh decision after issuing notice to Sri.varkey. The land Board will depute the authorised officer for getting a report as to who is in actual physical possession of the property having an extent of 4.50 acres. The Land Board will enter specific finding as to who is in possession of the controversial item and thereafter only fresh orders will be passed after hearing all the concerned parties. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,

JUDGE.

Dpk CRP No. 1877/1997 3

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.

C.R.P. NO.1877 OF 1997 E

O R D E R

21ST AUGUST 2007


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.