Beevikutty Amma vs State of Kerala

K. Harilal, J.—The revision petitioner is the claim petitioner under Sec. 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act in S.M. No. 1/03 on the files of the Taluk Land Broad, Ottapalam. The above claim petition was filed, praying exclusion of 23 cents of land which is included in the ceiling account of the deceased Athanickal Kunhimohammed Haji and the property directed to be surrendered by him also. The above claim petition was filed pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P. (c) No. 5751/10.

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and her children are the owners in possession of 1.06 acres of property in Sy. Nos. 357/9 and 356/5B of Nagalassery Village in Ottapalam Taluk. This property originally belonged to Athanikkal Koyamu Haji and his brother Athanikkal Pokker Haji. Subsequently, they partitioned the properties among themselves. Thereafter, Koyamu Haji assigned 2 acres 47 cents of his property in favour of the husband of the petitioner by name Abdulla vide assignment deed No. 1697/84. As a matter of fact, Koyamu Haji had purchased the said properties by virtue of kanam assignment deed No. 2512/1928 from one Lekshmi Amma and others. Athanickal Kunhimohammed Haji had never been in possession and enjoyment of the above said 2 acres 47 cents of property. Since the date of purchase, till 2009. Abdulla and subsequently his legal representatives, in accordance with the shares allotted to them, have been paying basic tax for the said property. In the year 2009, when the petitioner attempted to pay tax for the property, the Village Officer refused to accept tax informing that the properties are included in a ceiling case initiated against Athanickal Kunhimohammed Haji. In the above circumstance, the petitioner has preferred the above claim petition to get the properties excluded from the ceiling case.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner drew my attention to the sale deed No. 1697/1984, and submits that the property originally belonged to one Lakshmi Amma as per kanam assignment deed No. 2512/1928 and the said property had never been in possession of Athanickal Kunhumuhammed Haji. But the Land Board miserably failed to ascertain devolution of property in its correct perspective. In short, the sum and substance of the argument is that the land purchased by the husband of the petitioner is not an excess land liable to be surrendered in the ceiling case initiated against Athanickal Kunhimohammed Haji.

Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader advanced arguments to justify the findings in the impugned order.

Going by the impugned order, it is seen that the Land Board has not taken any effort to consider the sale deed No. 1697/84 by which the petitioner''s husband Abdulla got title and possession over the property. But in the impugned order, it is seen that this property is also treated as a property which devolved upon Koyamu Haji as the successor in interest of Athanickal Kunhimohammed Haji. It is also held that this property can be treated as the property of Athanickal Kunhimohammed Haji only on the reason that the same property had been purchased from Koyamu Haji who is none other than the deceased declarant Athanickal Kunhimohammed Haji. Merely on that assumption, without considering the title deed by which the petitioner''s husband Abdulla got title and possession over the property, the Taluk Land Board arrived at a finding that the petitioner''s claim is liable to be rejected. Had the Land Board made any effort to understand the sale deed No. 1697/84 by which Abdulla got right and possession over the property, the Taluk Land Board could have understood that the property involved sale deed No. 1697/84 was the property purchased from Lakshmi Amma as per the kanam assignment deed No. 2512/1928.

In the above view, I am constrained to arrive at a finding that the Taluk Land Board has not applied its mind over the issue involved in this claim petition. Needless to say, this is a perfunctory disposal without application of mind in disregard to the sale deed No. 1697/84 by which the petitioner''s husband Abdulla got right over the property. None of the documents have been adverted to while passing the order under challenge. The direction of this Court in W.P.(c) No. 5751/10 has not been considered.

Hence I set aside the impugned order under challenge and remit the case back to the Taluk Land Board to pass orders afresh after considering all documents, particularly, sale deed No. 1697/84 and also after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. However, the Land Board shall pass order afresh within a period of six months from today.

This revision petition is disposed of as above.