JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction in the nature of prohibition restraining respondents 2 to 4 from taking possession of any land from the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P6 order and also for other related reliefs.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are that, the petitioner was in possession of an extent of 3687.48 acres of land. The land was taken on lease for the purpose of cultivation for a period of 99 years from 25.4.1906 and it was cultivated with rubber trees and other plants. The original lease was renewed in the year 1913 and thereafter it was further renewed by lease deed dated 9.7.1937 and registered as document No.714 dated 13.8.1937. The lease was in respect of land commonly known as Pullangode and Kadancherry etc. in Thrikkunnassery Desom in Ernad Taluk. The land was taken on lease by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner for
3
W.P.(C). No.20028 of 2004 2 plantation purposes, the petitioner obtained fixity of tenure under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
3. As per Exr.P1 the Taluk Land Board, Ernad initiated Ceiling Case No.CR 181/73-C9 against the petitioner under Chapter III of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and as per the draft statement directed surrender of 3668.95 acres of land. In Ext.P1, an extent of 14.60 acres of land in Sy.No.1028 and
301.51 acres in Sy.No.1029 of Kalikavu Village are also included as property in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner.
4. Thereupon petitioner filed its return claiming exemption of the entire land by contending that out of the aforesaid land, 2142.52 acres is rubber plantation and an extent of 1502.64 acres was private forest eligible for exemption from ceiling. The Taluk Land Board, Ernad as per Ext.P2 order exempted the entire land. 2142.52 acres is exempted as plantation, 1525.32 acres is exempted as private forest and 16.11 acres is exempted as land required for ancillary purpose.
5. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application for issue of purchase certificate under the Kerala Land Reforms
4
W.P.(C). No.20028 of 2004 3 (Vesting and Assignment) Rules 1970 vide S.M.779/2000. It is also contended that all the interested parties were made as respondents. Thereupon the land Tribunal, Manjeri as per Ext.P3 order dated 4.6.2003 issued purchase certificate in favour of the petitioner assigning an extent of 57.40 acres in Sy.No.1041, 14.60 acres in Sy.No.1028/1 and 301.51 acres in Sy.No.1029 of Kalikavu Village. It is the further contention of the petitioner that, the petitioner has also obtained orders for issuance of purchase certificate in respect of the remaining property as per proceedings in S.M. 777/2000 and S.M.778/2000. It is also contended that the private forest was completely vested in the Government under the Kerala Vesting and Assignment Act. Even though the petitioner challenged vesting of the private forest areas, only an extent of 28.40 acres in R.S. No.1032 was exempted from the purview of Vesting under the said Act. Impugning the said order certain respondents filed appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same was pending.
6. Matters being so the 3rdrespondent, Village Officer by
5
W.P.(C). No.20028 of 2004 4 his order dated 16.12.2003 called upon the petitioner to produce records relating to 57 acres of land in Sy.No.1029, evident from Ext.P4. It is also stated that as per order dated 17.2.2000 in S.R.No.2/97 Taluk Land Board directed the declarant, Sri.K. Krishnan Nair and his family to surrender the above land. The petitioner by Ext.P5 letter dated 24.12.2003, had forwarded to the Village Officer a copy of Land Board's order, Ext.P2, exempting the entire land belonging to the petitioner. It is the further contention of the petitioner that, despite the clarification given by the petitioner, the 3rdrespondent is proceeding to take possession of the property of the petitioner as directed by the Taluk Land Board, Nilambur referred to above. It is also contended that the Village Officer is taking proceedings purportedly on the basis of an order passed by the Taluk Land Board, Nilambur in S.R.No.2/97 dated 17.2.2000. A copy of which was later obtained by the petitioner, evident from Ext.P6.
7. That apart it is contended by the petitioner that in spite of all these the petitioner is not made a party to the above proceedings and therefore the above order is not binding on the
6
W.P.(C). No.20028 of 2004 5 petitioner. So also the petitioner has filed Ext.P7 representation to the District Collector, Malappuram on 26.6.2004 with copies to respondents 2 and 3 requesting to make necessary enquiries in the matter and to avoid taking possession of the property. But no reply was issued thereafter.
8. It is thus aggrieved this writ petition is filed by the petitioner on the apprehension that on instructions from the 4th respondent, the 3rdrespondent may take possession of the land belonging to the petitioner and in such event the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injuries.
9. The 2ndrespondent has filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition refuting the allegations raised and also disputing the claims raised by the petitioner. According to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the proceedings initiated pursuant to the order passed against the original jenmi of the property. According to the 2ndrespondent, the petitioner has no manner of right since the original jenmi was the person who was responsible to answer to the impugned proceedings initiated by respondents, inter alia among other
7
W.P.(C). No.20028 of 2004 6 contentions and therefore sought dismissal of the writ petition.
10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Gopi Krishnan Nambiar and learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the records made available along with the writ petition. Having considered the rival submissions, I find that pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 proceedings, the claims with respect to the properties in question were settled by the respective statutory authorities and thereafter purchase certificate was secured by the petitioner. Even though when Exts.P3 to P5 proceedings became known to the petitioner and the same was pointed out to the District Collector as per Ext.P7, the apprehensions voiced by the petitioner was not considered taking into account Exts.P1 and P2 statutory proceedings and Ext.P3 certificate obtained by them pursuant to the statutory orders passed by the respective authorities. It has also come to my notice that in spite of due diligence shown by the petitioner, the respondents have not cared to consider any of the aspects that were pointed out by the petitioner in relation to the proceedings initiated against the original jenmi vis-a-vis its
8
W.P.(C). No.20028 of 2004 7 rights over the properties. Since the petitioner was in possession as per the lease hold rights held by it and thereafter concluded by Exts.P1 and P2 proceedings, the respondents were bound to issue notice to the petitioner also before finalising the proceedings pursuant to Exts.P3 to P6, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner prima facie became vested with the properties pursuant to the statutory orders passed by the respective statutory authorities. Therefore, petitioner was a necessary party to the proceedings , entitled to be heard.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the authorities should have heard the petitioner also, before taking a final decision with regard to the surrender that is to be made by the original jenmi with respect to the properties in question.
12. In that view of the matter I am inclined to set aside Ext.P6 order passed by the Taluk Land Board, Nilambur in S.R.No.2/97 dated 17.2.2000 and consequently to re-consider the same by the Taluk Land Board, Nilabur or the successor Taluk Land Board, after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to submit its objection, and hearing all concerned.
9
W.P.(C). No.20028 of 2004 8 Since the matter is of the year, 2000, the Taluk Land Board shall take every earnest efforts to dispose of the same at the earliest and at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, the concerned Taluk Land Board will issue notice to the petitioner as well as to the necessary parties, before the matter is finally heard.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY
JUDGE
//true copy// P.A. To Judge smv
18.2.2016
10