The objections raised by them are to the following effect The land included in many survey numbers or with the others possession from a long time.
Ramankutty died leaving behind him his widow, three sons and two daughters including the petitioner herein.
The lands in others possession are mentioned below According to the particulars given in the said application, a total extent of about 39 to 40 acres was in possession of different third parties .
They prayed that the said order be set aside and the matter be decided afresh.
After allowing an extent of 15 acres to be retained by Ramankuttys family, surplus land liable to be surrendered was worked out at 26.51 acres.
One of the major sons.
No such companytention was ever raised by their companynsel even though they had ample opportunity in doing so before the Board.
Sometime in 1979, the aforesaid Ravindran, appellant Indcevirakshan, and the other legal representatives of the Ramankutty filed an application before the Taluk Land Board raising certain objections to the order dated 25.11.75.
The present petition is filed after lapse of nearly two years and, is therefore, barred by time.
This order was passed on 25.11.75.
It pertains to determination of ceiling of agricultural lands held by the appellants family and surrender of surplus lands.
After making an inquiry, the Board found that Ramankutty held a total extent of 47.91 acres of land.
The said application was dismissed by the Taluk Land Board on 29.9.79.
The above lands are to be exempted in calculating the extent.
423/76 before the High Court of Kerala, companytending that the properties companytained in the declaration filed by Ramankutty belong to the joint family and number to the family unit of Ramankutty alone.
P.K. Ravindran filed a revision being CRP No.
This was done on 18.2.1980 as is evident from the report of the Tahsildar, Ottapalam dated 19.2.1980 addressed to the Chairman, Taluk Land Board, Ottapalam.
The matter was pending before the Board from October 73 to November 75.
Therefore, the statement was given including the above shown lands also.
The applicants cannot be allowed to raise fresh ground at this stage.
Even the surveys report shows that the order dated 25.11.75 was passed on the basis of wrong information.
The plea that the petitioners were number aware of the companyrect facts earlier cannot be accepted.
Against the order of the Taluk Land Board aforesaid dated 29.9.1979 the appellant preferred a Revision before the High Court of Kerala, from which revision the present appeal arises.
The declarant Ramankutty or his legal heirs did never claim before the Taluk Land Board that the properties companytained in Ramankuttys declaration were in possession of the third parties.
Appellants father P.K. Ramankutty Vaidyar filed a return of his agricultural holding before the Taluk Land Board.
The Taluk Land Board gave the following reasons for dismissing the said application.
Now the abovementioned facts are clearly understood when surveyor came to the spot and inspected as per the order of the board.
He also companytended that certain plantations entitled to be exempted under Section 81 of the Act were number exempted.
Ramankutty Vaidyar who gave the declaration in the above number, because of his old age and sickness was unable to give a statement after understanding the facts and inspecting the land.
Even the recent report of the Tahsildar shows that the legal heirs have disposed of certain properties as late as 1978.
Out of it, 6.40 acres was exempted under Section 81 of the Act.
The matter arises under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964.
P. Jeevan Reddy, J. An order of a learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court dismissing the Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellant is called in question in this Civil Appeal.
Accordingly, it appears the Tahsildar took possession of 21 acres 31 cents out of 26 acres 51 cents which he was asked to take possession of.
