N.C. KAMALAM versus STATE

High Court of Kerala

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

N.C. KAMALAM v. STATE - CRP No. 352 of 2001(A) [2007] RD-KL 2251 (31 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 352 of 2001(A)

1. N.C. KAMALAM
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

Dated :31/01/2007

O R D E R

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

C.R.P.No.352 of 2001

Dated this the 31st day of January, 2007

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the proceedings dated 28.12.2000 of the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad. It is seen that proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act were finalised by order dated 16.6.1979, but a proposal for reopening was initiated by notice dated 12.8.1991. That culminated in an order dated 30.3.1993, reopening the proceedings which was challenged by the landlords in C.R.P.No.741 of 1994. This court disposed of the aforesaid C.R.P by order dated 25.1.1999, setting aside the proceedings of the Taluk Land Board dated 30.3.1993 and directing the Taluk Land Board to reconsider the matter after hearing the petitioners and other interested parties. It was also directed that the question of applicability under Section 85(9)(a) of the Act will also be considered by the Taluk Land Board.

2. On remand of the matter, the Taluk Land Board proceeded to reconsider the matter and notices were issued and  CRP352/2001 Page numbers parties were heard. The impugned order was thereafter issued in which the direction of this court to consider the applicability under Section 85(9)(a) is also seen taken note of. However, without addressing that issue, the Taluk Land Board decided the matter on merit and determined the total extent held by the declarant and the area exempted the ceiling area, applicability etc.

3. The counsel for the petitioners is justified in his submission that the Taluk Land Board has ignored the direction of this court to consider the applicability or otherwise of Section 85(9)(a) of the KLR Act. Though the counsel argued on merit of his contention as well, in the view that I propose to take, I am not expressing my opinion on the merits of the contentions. The learned Government Pleader was also not in a position to draw any support from the order with regard to the aforesaid question. Therefore, the order is unsustainable for not having dealt with the point raised regarding the applicability under Section 85(9)(a) of the KLR Act.

4. In the aforesaid circumstances, I set aside the impugned order and direct the Taluk Land Board to reconsider  CRP352/2001 Page numbers the matter after affording an opportunity to the parties and decide the question of applicability under Section 85(9)(a) of the KLR Act with regard to the proceedings against the petitioners. The order having been set aside, the other issues dealt with in the impugned order are left open to be agitated and considered afresh. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,

JUDGE

csl  CRP352/2001 Page numbers K.T.SANKARAN,

JUDGE

csl

K.T.SANKARAN, J

M.F.A.No.1479 of 1998

JUDGMENT

 CRP352/2001 Page numbers 11th January, 2007  CRP352/2001 Page numbers 

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

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.