AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—Heard both sides.
First Respondent filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the 2nd Respondent to expedite the orders on the application made by him u/s 85 (8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. He also sought a direction that until a decision is taken on his application, status quo as regards the use of the land should be maintained. At the admission stage itself b y judgment rendered on 19th January, 2011, this Court disposed of the judgment directing the Taluk Land Board to dispose of the proceedings and further ordering that in the meanwhile, the land involved in the proceedings shall not be made use of including the building of helipad of the BSF.
In this review petition, the learned AdditionalAdvocate General points out that by Annexure-1 proceedings of the Taluk Land Board, dated 30.3.2010 the Taluk Land Board held 207.33 acres of land in Sy. No. 30/1/A1 of Vilakkottur Desom as surplus land under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Against the said order, the landlord filed C.R.P. No. 198/2010 which was dismissed by this Court as per Annexure 2 order rendered on 13thSeptember 2010. According to the learned AdditionalAdvocate General, immediately after Annexure 1 order passed by the Taluk Land Board, by Annexure- 3 mahazar, the land in question was taken over on 8.4.2010. Thereafter,60 acres out of the aforesaid land was earmarked to be handed over to the BSF. It is stated that in the land so earmarked, the BSF has already constructed a helipad, a photograph of which is produced as Annexure 5.
According to the learned Additional Advocate General, certain persons who are also similar claimants made applications u/s 85 (8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act to the Taluk Land Board and thereafter approached this Court and filed O.P. (C) No. 361/2010. It is stated that the said Original Petition was disposed of by Annexure -4 judgment directing disposal of the application but declining any order to keep further action in respect of the land in question in abeyance. It is stated that the documents of title in respect of the earmarked land was scheduled to be handed over to the authorities of the BSF in a public function which is scheduled to be held on 27.1.2011 and Annexure- 6 is the public notice that was issued. It is stated that it was without disclosing all the above developments that the writ petition was filed and the judgment in question was rendered by this Court.
Although the learned Counsel for the Petitioner disputed the claim of the learned Additional Advocate General that possession of the land in question was taken over by them, still the fact remains that many developments have taken place after Annexure 1 order was passed by the Taluk Land Board on 30.3.2010. If these facts were disclosed, this Court would not have passed any order preventing there view Petitioners from dealing with the lands. It was without taking note of these developments, this Court directed that status quo should be maintained until orders are passed by the Taluk Land Board on the application made by the writ Petitioner u/s 85 (8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-7 and this, I must concede, is an error committed by this Court.
Having regard to all the developments that have taken place after Annexure 1 order was rendered and also taking note of the fact that in the judgment in O.P. No. 361/2010, this Court did not pass any order of status quo as done in this case I am inclined to think that the judgment to the extent status quo is ordered to be maintained calls for review.
Accordingly, I dispose of this review petition vacating the directions in the judgment to the extent that Respondents are directed not to make use of the land including the building of helipad by the BSF.
Needless to say that the utilisation of the land as above will be subject the outcome of the proceedings now pending before the Taluk Land Board.