The rejection of land claims for lack of deemed tenancy is unjustified if the party proves uninterrupted possession, as clarified in previous judgments.

ORDER

The challenge in this civil revision petition is against an order dated 16.11.2012 passed by the Taluk Land Board, Chittur in SM No.375/1978. The petitioners had preferred claims under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short, ‘the Act’) on the basis of transfers effected by the declarant/his predecessors with respect to lands which were included in the ceiling case of the declarant Sri.Ussanar Rawther. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the transfers had been effected either by the declarant himself or persons who had obtained transfer from him, in favour of the petitioners herein. The Taluk Land Board has rejected the contentions finding that the petitioners have not proved the deemed tenancy. At the time of admission, this Court had passed an interim order on 10.04.2013, the operative portion of which has been extracted hereunder:

“3. In view of Sec.106B of the Act, proper forum for deciding the claim under Sec.7E of the Act is the Land Tribunal concerned. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the State Government have not framed Rules for adjudication of claims under Sec.7E of the Act and hence the Land Tribunal concerned is not entertaining the applications.

In the above circumstance it is directed that possession if any of petitioners over the areas claimed by them under Sec.7E of the Act shall not be disturbed by the respondents. It is made clear that if otherwise not prohibited by any other order, respondents can proceed against properties other than those properties if any in the possession of petitioners.”

2. According to the petitioners, they are still in possession of the land and the land has not been taken possession of and distributed, as provided for in the proviso to Section 84 of the Act, which would disentitle them from seeking to reopen the ceiling case. It is also submitted that the properties have not been reserved for any public purpose as stated in the said provision.

3. The Government Pleader relied on the judgments of two learned Single Judges of this Court in CRP(LR) No.577 of 2012 and O.P.(C) No.47 of 2012 wherein a view was taken that a claim under Section 7E of the Act has to be considered only by the Land Tribunal.

4. The said view can no longer be stated to be the correct legal position in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court inState of Kerala v. Fr.Xavier Karuvallil [2015 (3) KLT 573] wherein this Court held that the grant of a certificate of title under Section 106B by the Land Tribunal is not a sine qua non for a claim of deemed tenancy under Section 7E , and that it is open for the Taluk Land Board to consider a claim under in an application under Section 85(8) of the Act. The question regarding the proof of deemed tenancy would arise only if the claim petitioners failed to prove the transfer in their favour or their legal possession on the basis of an agreement for transfer or otherwise. As has been held by this Court in Rajeev v. District Collector [2014 (4) KLT 209] , what is required is uninterrupted possession of the land.

5. In the above circumstances, the rejection of the application on the ground that the petitioners have not proved their deemed tenancy cannot be justified. The civil revision petition is hence disposed of with the following directions:

The order dated 16.11.2012 in SM No.375/1978 passed by the Taluk Land Board, Chittur is set aside in so far it relates to the petitioners. The Taluk Land Board shall reconsider the applications submitted by the petitioners in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Rajeev’s case (supra) and Fr.Xavier Karuvallil’s case (supra) and pass fresh orders. Since the issue has been pending for past several years, it is expected that the Taluk Land Board wi