J U D G M E N T

The petitioner says that his predecessors-in-interest and brothers were in possession of 24 Acres of land, comprised of item No.18 in Ext.P1. He admits that, out of the afore, an extent of 5.40 Acres were taken possession of by the Government as 'excess land', under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, but that until today, the demarcation of the same or its boundaries have not been informed to him. He says that, therefore, he is now incapacitated from staking claim to certain other extents of the said land, which, he admits is in the possession of the 3rd parties, further saying that civil suits are also pending with respect to it.

2. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the competent respondents be directed to identify the 5.40 Acres of land, which was taken possession of as 'excess land', so as to enable him to work out his remedies as regards the rest of the properties, including for seeking permission to remit land tax thereon.

3. The afore submissions of Sri.K.Mohanakannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, were answered by Sri.Jafar Khan - learned Senior Government Pleader, saying that, as is evident from Ext.P6, the petitioner has been found to be in possession of only 2.0920 Hectares of land and that the other portions are in possession of other persons. He submitted that, therefore, the petitioner will have to invoke his remedies before the competent Civil Court and cannot seek that the respondents be directed to grant him permission to remit land tax on the properties after 5.40 Acres, which has been determined as being 'excess land'.

4. In reply, Sri.K.Mohanakannan, conceded that the question whether his client is in possession of 2.0920 Hectares of land or more, is one that he will have to certainly work out as per law. He submitted that, however, the impediment which his client faces in doing so, is that the aforementioned 5.40 Acres of land, which has been taken possession of as 'excess land', has not been yet demarcated or its boundaries informed to him. He, therefore, reiteratingly, prayed that the competent respondents be directed to afford his client information regarding the demarcation of 5.40 Acres of land, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

5. When I evaluate the afore submissions, the question whether the petitioner is in possession of particular extent of land or not, can be decided only after the 5.40 Acres, which has been taken possession of from him as 'excess land' is properly identified.

6. To that extent, I am certain that the petitioner is entitled to relief.

7. In the afore circumstances and without entering into the other contentions of the rival parties on its merits, I order this writ petition and direct the 4th respondent - Tahsildar (LR) to hear the petitioner and take a decision as to the demarcation and measurements of 5.40 Acres of land, which has been admittedly taken possession of him as 'excess land' and to furnish him a report/sketch of the same, as expeditiously as is possible.

8. To obtain an expeditious disposal of the directions above, I direct the petitioner to mark appearance before the 4th respondent at 11.00 am on 03.12.2021; on which day, the said Authority will either hear him or fix another date of hearing and assess his documents and then comply with the afore directions within a period of three months from 03.12.2021.

Needless to say, the petitioner's contentions with respect to the remaining property, on which he now seeks permission to remit land tax, are left open to be pursued by him appropriately, including by approaching this Court again, after the afore exercise is completed and the resultant order communicated to him.

At this point, Sri.K.Mohanankannan, learned counsel for the petitioner took my attention to Ext.P6 to show me that proceedings bearing No.CR.700/1973 was initiated as early as on 25.06.1976, demarcating the 'excess land' mentioning its attributes. He, therefore, prayed that this may also be directed to be kept in mind by th