The main legal point established in the judgment is that separate rules are not necessary for granting benefits under Section 7(E) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, and the Taluk Land Board is duty bound to consider applications filed under this section.

S. Siri Jagan, J.

Petitioner is the owner of certain lands. He purchased the properties from a declarant under the ceiling provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. He filed an application u/s 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act seeking benefits of Section 7(E) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, introduced by an amendment to the said Act in 2005, for excluding the said land from surrender as excess land. That application was dismissed. The petitioner approached this Court by filing CRP No. 1584/1999. By Ext. P1 order, a learned Single Judge of this Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in the light of the findings in Ext. P1 Judgment. Fresh orders have not yet been passed. In the meanwhile, apparently based on a direction from the Government, the Secretary of the Land Board issued Ext. P4 communication to the Chairpersons of the Taluk Land Boards directing them not to take any steps u/s 7(E) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, since the Government has not yet approved rules for implementation of the same. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following relief’s :

(i) issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ quashing Ext. P4 direction as illegal as the same issued without authority and jurisdiction.

(ii) direct the 3rd respondent to consider the application filed u/s 85(8) of Kerala Land Reforms Act on merit on the basis of Ext. P1 judgment and without considering Ext. P4 order.

(iii) direct the 4th respondent to consider Ext. P3 application on merit ignoring Ext. P4 direction.

(iv) granting such other order or direction as this Honourable Court deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, this Court has in Pasupathi Nampoothiri v. State of Kerala 2008 KHC 4882 : 2008 (4) KLT 163 held that the State Land Board cannot direct the Taluk Land Board to ignore the provisions of Section 7(E) and not to consider applications filed u/s 7(E). It is also submitted that Ext. P4 communication has already been quashed by this Court in that decision. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Taluk Land Board is duty bound to consider the application of the petitioner u/s 85(8) in the light of Section 7(E).

2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that Section 7(E) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act cannot now be implemented since the Government has not yet framed the rules for implementation of the same.

3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Section 7(E) of the amended Kerala Land Reforms Act reads thus:

[7E. Certain persons who acquired lands to be deemed tenants. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 74 or Section 84 or in any other provisions of this Act, or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract, custom or usage, or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or other authority, a person who at the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005, is in possession of any land, not exceeding four hectares in extent, acquired by him or his predecessor-in-interest by way of purchase or otherwise on payment of consideration from any person holding land in excess of the ceiling area, during the period between the date of the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964), and the date of commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005, shall be deemed to be a tenant.]

I do not think that for granting benefits of Section 7(E) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, any separate rules are necessary, since Section 7(E) itself confers a benefit to certain persons, who are in possession of land which is excess land at the hands of the declarant. Ext. P4 has already been quashed by this Court in Pasupathi Nampoothiri's case (supra). Another learned Judge of this Court has, in Institute of Brot